Preamble

The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock.

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For the County of York, West Riding (Hemsworth Division), in the room of George Arthur Griffiths, esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Whiteley.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Birmingham Corporation Bill (by Order)

Read a Second time, and committed.

High Wycombe Corporation Bill (by Order)

Read a Second time, and committed.

Long Eaton Urban District Council Bill (by Order)

Read a Second time, and committed.

PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS

Address for "Return showing the total number of electors on the register now in force in each Parliamentary constituency in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and in each local government area in England and Wales."— [Mr. Oliver.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Lanark Race Meeting (Congestion)

Mr. Steele: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the congestion which arose in the streets and on all roads leading to Lanark at the last race meeting held at that town; and

will he take the necessary steps to ensure that proper facilities for the parking of vehicles and the entrance of the public into the grounds are made before a licence is granted for racing on 31st May and 1st June.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): I am informed that the circumstances which led to the congestion last year have been discussed by the chief constable and a representative of the racecourse company and that the company are actively considering the provision of additional turnstiles, additional car parks, and improvement of the access to the existing car park. I have no power to grant or withhold a licence for race meetings.

Housing

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the original cost of the transitional houses erected at Levendale and Frielands Place, Dumbartonshire, exclusive of land, roads and services; and if he will state the cost of making the houses habitable after the tenants assumed occupancy.

Mr. Westwood: The original cost of each of these houses, exclusive of land, roads and services, was£598; the cost of making each house habitable after the tenants assumed occupancy was£307.

Mr. McKinlay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that as early as October, 1944, his predecessor gave me, in answer to a Question in this House, the original cost of£719? Can he account for the disparity?

Mr. Westwood: I am not aware of the previous answer that was given, but I will certainly look into the point raised by the hon. Member.

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the transitional houses erected at Levendale and Frielands Place, Dumbartonshire, are now in all respects fit for human habitation; and if there has been any settlement of the compensation claim made by the occupiers.

Mr. Westwood: The work for the improvement of these houses has been completed, and the condition of the houses is now regarded as satisfactory. The tenants' claims for compensation for damage to furnishings have been investi-


gated and the amount of settlement agreed with 94 per cent. of the tenants. Payment of the claims will be made at a very early date.

Mr. McKinlay: May 1 ask my right hon. Friend, in view of the fact that the war is over and the blackout has been lifted, who is responsible for this appalling mess?

Mr. Westwood: I will certainly look into the suggestion which has been made.

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland under what powers the Scottish Special Housing Association proposes to convert temporary buildings, erected on sites requisitioned under Defence Regulations, into permanent houses, without submitting plans to the local Dean of Guild Court or local planning authority.

Mr. Westwood: I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind the conversion into houses of the hostel at Kirkintilloch. The works of conversion are being carried out on my behalf by the Scottish Special Housing Association under Regulation 51 of the Defence (General) Regulations. Copies of the plans were sent to the Town Council of Kirkintilloch and the County Council of Dumbarton for their information on 31st December, 1945.

Mr. McKinlay: Would my right hon. Friend answer the Question on the Order Paper? Is it intended that sites which were requisitioned under Defence Regulations should have permanent buildings erected upon them which do not comply with local building regulations and plans of which are not submitted to the local planning authorities?

Mr. Westwood: The exact position under Defence Regulation 51 is that when land is in the possession of a competent authority by virtue of the Regulation, it may be used by, or under the authority Of, the competent authority for such purpose and in such manner as the authority thinks expedient. I am advised that this gives ample cover for the conversion of the Kirkintilloch hostel which stands on requisitioned land.

Mr. McKinlay: May I request an answer to my question? Is it the intention of the Department to erect on lands which were requisitioned for war pur-

poses, permanent buildings which do not comply with the local building regulations, and is the Minister aware that there is a very grave doubt as to whether the land was requisitioned and that as a matter of fact his Department may be trespassing?

Mr. Westwood: I shall certainly look into the last point made by my hon. Friend.

Major Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Report of the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee on Owner Occupation will be available.

Mr. Westwood: This Report is now in proof and I hope to publish it by the end of this month.

Major Spence: Would the Minister say whether he proposes to take action on the recommendation of the Report when it is published?

Mr. Westwood: I can only say that the Report is to be published and that thereafter I will give consideration to the recommendations made.

Major Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will investigate the loss of over 2,800 man-hours due to the lack of planning at the Rosehill housing site, Aberdeen, in December and January; and if he will state the causes.

Mr. Westwood: The Rosehill housing site was being prepared for American houses and after certain preparatory work had been carried out the local authority decided to accept only a portion of the number of such houses originally allocated to them. I have no information as to the number of man hours spent on the job but I am advised that approximately 50 per cent. of the preparatory foundation work completed for these houses can be utilised for the alternative type which we are to supply.

Major Spence: Is the Minister aware that when I visited this site yesterday 1 saw bricklayers knocking down the foundations of 50 houses which they had just been building, that only a very small part of the original foundations can be used, and that the original Question concerns loss of time through lack of instruction from his office?

Mr. Westwood: I am not aware of what the hon. Member saw when he visited the


site yesterday, but I can assure him that the Aberdeen Town Council were not prepared to take the original number of houses that were allocated to them. I do not want to go into that—it would be too long a subject for question and answer

11. Major Ramsay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take steps to ensure prompt delivery of the Swedish timber semi-permanent£1,600 houses ordered by local authorities in Scotland, in view of the fact that delay in delivery will cause the collapse of brick gables already erected for use in connection with these houses; and who is responsible for defraying expense incurred in making good any deterioration of work already done owing to such non-delivery.

Mr. Westwood: Deliveries, which are now in progress, will be continued at an increasing pace in order to avoid the risk of damage to the foundations or gable walls. If the hon. and gallant Member has any particular case in mind and furnishes me with particulars, including the terms of the relevant contract, I shall have the matter considered.

Major Ramsay: The Question on the Order Paper asks whether or not the right 'hon. Gentleman will ensure prompt delivery of these temporary houses in view of the fact that if delivery is not prompt there is a large wastage in labour, money, and material because the gables will be blown down in the event of a high wind or inclement weather. Prompt delivery is the assurance I seek.

Mr. Westwood: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that there will be no unnecessary delays by my Department in dealing with any aspect of housing.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Can the Minister give the House any firm figures of the estimated number of such houses like, months, or the next year?

Mr. Westwood: Not without notice.

Major Ramsay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that out of the 836 tradesmen employed in the building industry in Angus who were called up 'during the war only 101 have been released under Class A or B by 7th January, and, as a result, the building

of houses is being seriously impeded; and whether he will take action to ameliorate the position

Mr. Westwood: Everything possible is being done, within the framework of the, Demobilisation scheme, to ensure the early release of building tradesmen from the Forces, but I am afraid that it would not be possible to release these men on a geographical basis. I am anxious that contractors should notify their labour requirements s to the Ministry of Labour well in advance of need, but if the hon. and gallant Member has any particular case of difficulty in mind perhaps he will give me details so that I may make inquiries.

Major Ramsay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the vital necessity of rectifying the position with regard to building labour as far as possible, in view of the detrimental effect lack of rural houses will have on our national food production?

Mr. Westwood: It is not my duty to provide the labour; that is the duty of the Minister of Labour. I assure the hon. and gallant Member that whatever can be done inside the framework of the demobilisation scheme" is being done for the purpose of providing the necessary labour for the houses.

Mr. Stephen: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that Scotland is being treated as fairly as England?

Mr. Westwood: I can assure my hon. Friend that I and my Joint Undersecretary who is now directly responsible for the housing side of administration in Scotland, are doing everything possible to see that we get a fair and square deal. I have no reason to think that my English colleagues in the Cabinet wish to be anything other than fair.

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of temporary houses allocated to Edinburgh; the number for which sites were available at 31st December, 1945; and the number for which sites are available at present.

Mr. Westwood: Edinburgh have been allocated 4,000 temporary houses. At 31st December, 1945, sites for 515 houses were serviced as against 605 on the 7th February, 1946.

Mr. Willis: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that sufficient sites are available


to avoid any delay in the temporary housing problem, arising out of the shortage of prepared sites?

Mr. Westwood: I shall not be satisfied until all the sites required for temporary houses which have been allocated are prepared in Scotland, and they ought to be prepared well in advance of the supply of the temporary houses.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the real trouble is that hundreds of sites are prepared and serviced now, and that we cannot get houses from the Ministry of Works?

Mr. Westwood: I have nothing to add to what I think is a satisfactory answer to the Question put on the Order Paper.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to ensure that no time lag between immediate house building in the Western Isles and Highland areas and the compulsory installation under the new legislation of water supply in all new houses is allowed to develop to the detriment or delay of either undertaking.

Mr. Westwood: As soon as the Bill becomes law, steps will be taken by the Department of Health to bring its provisions to the notice of local authorities, including the requirement that all houses built after it comes into operation must have an inside water supply. Works necessary for the installation of such supplies will therefore be part of the actual building work and, as such, will receive the highest possible priority.

Mr. MacMillan: Is my right hon. Friend-satisfied that it will be technically and otherwise possible to ensure that no house building at all will be held up while waiting for water supplies to be installed?

Mr. Westwood: If at all possible, it is my purpose to make those two things work side by side.

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he is aware that sites, labour, sand and shingle, transport and stone are all available in the Outer Hebrides for the State-assisted building of houses by crofters and squatters; whether he is satisfied that they have access through the Department of

Agriculture Store and other suppliers to timber, wallboard, doors, windows, roofing and all other necessary prefabricated material and to all water supply and sanitary fittings; and what urgent steps are being taken to enable men in these parts to build their own homes.

Mr. Westwood: Assistance under schemes administered by the Department of Agriculture is confined to landholders, cottars and the tenants of fishermen's holdings constituted by the Department of Agriculture. I am aware that the resources mentioned in the first part of the Question are available to these people. The Department's organisation for the sale of other materials and fitments remains in operation but the supplies available are liable to be affected by shortages which exist throughout the country. As regards other measures I am arranging that the loan scheme which was suspended during the war years should again be put into operation.

Agricultural Colleges (State Grants)

Major Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has taken steps to ensure that the agricultural colleges in Scotland are on an equal financial footing with those in England.

Mr. Westwood: I presume that the hon. Member's Question relates to the amount of financial assistance which the colleges receive from the State. If this is so, I can assure him that the agricultural colleges in Scotland are not less favourably treated as regards State grants than those in England and Wales.

Major Spence: Is the Minister aware that some two months ago new provisions were made for the agricultural colleges in England which had a most unsettling effect on the staffs of the colleges in Scotland, and would he have this matter in mind when future announcements of this kind are being made?

Mr. Westwood: If the hon. and gallant Member has in mind the scales of salaries suggested for the English colleges, I can assure him that proposals for securing salaries and prospects for the staffs of the Scottish colleges comparable to those pro posed for the agricultural advisory service in England and Wales are at present being considered in consultation with the heads of the colleges.

Mr. Snadden:: Will the Secretary of State make certain that our best expert agriculturists are not drawn away by the larger salaries prevailing in the South?

Mr. Westwood: I can assure the hon. Member that it has always been my policy, both as Under-Secretary and now as Secretary of State, that no one in Scotland giving a service similar to that given in England shall be paid less for it

Planning

Mrs. Jean Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the report of the West of Scotland Regional Advisory Planning Committee may be expected; and if all local authorities subscribing thereto will be compelled to comply with it.

Mr. Westwood: I understand that the committee's report will be presented to the constituent local authorities early next month. The committee is purely an advisory body and its constitution does not provide that all the constituent authorities must accept its recommendations. The recommendations will cover a very wide field and will require consideration in detail by the various authorities concerned. Final decisions on any proposals which are related to the recommendations will lie with me as Planning Minister in consultation with the other Ministers concerned.

Distribution of Industry (Kirkcudbright)

Mr. McKie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make any statement regarding the resolution for- warded to him by the town council of Gatehouse-of-Fleet to have the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright scheduled as a development area under the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945.

Mr. Westwood: I have given careful consideration, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, to the resolution passed by the Town Council of Gatehouse-of-Fleet, but the circumstances of the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright are not, in our opinion, such as to justify its inclusion in the Scottish development area.

Mr. McKie: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very unsatisfactory reply. May I ask him if he will reconsider this matter, because not only

Gatehouse-of-Fleet and the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright, but the adjacent County of Wick—the whole of this delectable province is, in the opinion of many people, eminently suitable for a development area?

Mr. Westwood: If any change in circumstances should arise, both the President of the Board of Trade and myself are always willing to reconsider a question.

Edinburgh (Planning)

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to ensure that the projected housing developments in Edinburgh are being planned to preserve the dignity, beauty and amenities of Scotland's capital city.

Mr. Westwood: The Corporation of Edinburgh have appointed Professor Sir Patrick Abercrombie as planning consultant and also a full-time planning officer to advise them on the planning and development of the city, including housing development. Close contact is being maintained between the planning officer and the technical officers of the Department of Health on all planning questions. The sites and layouts of all local authority housing schemes are subject to my approval.

Mr. Willis: Is my fight hon. Friend aware that the survey necessary to give the statistical information for planning has only just been commenced, and that meanwhile the Corporation is undertaking a.large housing programme?. Will he, during the transitional period, do his best to ensure that we shall not commit the same mistakes that were made during the inter-war years?

Mr. Westwood: Without hesitation I can assure the hon. Member that I will do my best to see that the mistakes of the 19th century, so far as lack of planning is concerned, are not repeated in the 20th century.

Mr. George Ward: Will my right hon. Friend concentrate his mind on a little less planning and a little more performing?

Sir William Darling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the desire to press the Corporation of Edinburgh to provide sites encourages them to give lack of consideration to that proper planning which is so desirable?

Fishing Industry

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken by the bodies responsible for the success of the herring industry and white fishing industry financial assistance schemes, recently introduced, to ensure that first opportunity to purchase either new or second-hand vessels is afforded to sea-going fishermen on the working side of those industries, either by direct contract with sellers or through the statutory authorities.

Mr. Westwood: I have not had any evidence to show the need for the addition to the schemes for grants and loans to persons qualified under 'he Herring Industry Act, 1944, and the Inshore Fishing Industry Act, 1945, of any preferential arrangement of the kind suggested in the Question. If, however, my hon. Friend has any information bearing on the matter I shall be very glad to consider it.

Mr. MacMillan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the purpose of this Question is to try and secure assurance that priority will be given to men actually engaged in fishing, so that others who want to employ them, while sitting on the shore and taking the profits, will not have the benefit?

Mr. Westwood: I shall take note of the point made by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Would the ' right hon. Gentleman explain how he hopes to bring prosperity to this industry, when his colleague the President of the Board of Trade intimated on Saturday last that no further nets are to be manufactured?

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the Minister see that the first opportunity mentioned in the Question extends not only to vessels but also to gear?

Mr. Westwood: I will certainly take that point into consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEDAL RIBBONS

. Lieutenant William Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking to make good the shortage of medal ribbons, both in this country, and in Overseas Commands.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. J. Lawson): The position is rapidly improving and I hope that it will be possible to meet all outstanding requirements of serving soldiers in the near future.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Regular Officers (Technical Training)

21. Colonel Erroll: asked the Secretary of State for War what facilities he has given for Regular Army officers not in the R.E.M.E. or R.E. to acquire the necessary training and industrial experience to be come technically qualified up to recognised professional standards; and what functions such officers would fulfil in the peacetime Army.

Mr. Lawson: Regular officers, and indeed officers in general of various corps other than R.E.M.E. and R.E., have opportunities of improving their technical skill through the agency of courses and in the normal fulfilment of their duties. Technically qualified officers will be of the greatest value in the peacetime Army both in technical posts and as instructors. Whether or not the degree of skill acquired is up to recognised civilian professional standards must vary in individual cases.

Colonel Erroll:: Will any reference to the technical officers appear in the forthcoming paper on officers' pay?

Mr. Lawson: I could not answer that question.

Demobilisation

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: asked the Secretary of State for War the reason for the delay in identifying teachers serving in the Army and offering them Class B release; and whether, in view of the need for civilian teachers, he will take steps to speed up this scheme.

Mr. Lawson: I am informed that there is no delay in identifying teachers and in issuing release authorities for those whose names have been submitted by the Ministry of Education and Scottish Educational Department and who are eligible for Class B block release. There are, however, inevitable delays in bringing home teachers from distant overseas theatres, and in these cases some time will elapse between the issue of the authority and the actual release.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for War why the release of officers after Group 23 has been further delayed contrary to previous promises.

Mr. Lawson: The release of officers after Group 23 has not been further delayed. As previously announced the release of Group 24 officers will take place between 20th February and 13th March. The release of Group 25 officers will start on 14th March. No further programme has yet been published, but I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service will be making a statement in the next day or two concerning. all three Services.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that officers and their families. and prospective employers, are under the impression that there is to be delay, and can he make a statement at the earliest possible date to remove the uncertainty which undoubtedly exists?

Mr. Lawson: I understand how that mistake arose, and, as the House knows, I have given a very explicit answer in the last few days.

Mr. Dumpleton: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider post-dating the release date on all relevant documents of men demobilised from overseas to the end of the overseas leave period, so that, by claiming reinstatement rights by reporting for work on the ninth. Monday, they will not thereby lose their period of overseas leave.

Mr. Lawson: I regret that it would be impracticable to adopt my hon.' Friend's suggestion for administrative reasons. Dispersal units do not know to how much overseas service leave a man is entitled or if he is entitled to any at all. Even if a man has not come direct from overseas he may still be entitled to this leave by virtue of a previous period of overseas service.

Greece (Mail)

Mr. John Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will take steps to improve delivery of mail to troops now stationed in Greece, which is unsatisfactory.

Mr. Lawson: Towards the end of last year mails to troops stationed in Greece were delayed by bad weather both in this country and in the Mediterranean. During

January, however, the situation improved and air mail should now generally be delivered in four or five days.

Mr. Gallacher: Since there is difficulty in getting letters from here to the soldiers in Greece, would it not be better to bring the soldiers in Greece over here to the letters?

Mr. Lawson: No, Sir

Oversea Establishments

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement showing what progress has now been made in the cutting down of headquarters establishments in overseas theatres.

Mr. Lawson: The reductions made in the establishments of headquarters of overseas commands since VE-day vary between approximately 40 per cent. in the case of B.A.O.R. and C.M.F. and 15 per cent. in the case of the smaller headquarters, whose staffs were already reduced before VE-day because they had no operational commitments. This represents an overall reduction of approximately 31 per cent.

Sir Ronald Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, in reducing staff, that although the work of other branches has been reduced, the work of the Welfare Branch has rather increased and that the staff should not be reduced?

Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir, I will bear that in mind. I watch welfare very closely.

Mr. Turton: Arising out of the original reply, are we to understand that the large headquarters at Cairo has one of the smaller staffs which has been cut by only 15 per cent.?

Mr. Lawson: The large headquarters at Cairo has received very close attention within the last few weeks.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that many of us receive correspondence to the effect ' that there are a large number of highly placed officers doing little or nothing, and could he not increase the momentum of decreasing their number?

Mr. Lawson: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman can tell me what officers are doing nothing, I will give further attention to the matter. I have looked into it very closely.

Sir T. Moore: The right hon. Gentleman has not seen much.

Film Shows (Middle East)

Mr. Renton: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will ensure that U.S. films shown by E.N.S.A. to military camps in Palestine will be shown as soon as they are received in the country instead of being shown first in civilian cinemas.

Mr. Lawson: The whole question of the supply of United States films for Palestine and the Middle East is at present under review.

Discharged Hospital Patients

Mr. Renton: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that many soldiers are being discharged or re leased from the Army while still in hospital, and are thereby compelled to spend their release leave in hospital; and what steps he is taking to ensure that an end is put to this practice.

Mr. Lawson: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Henley (Sir G. Fox) on 18th December, 1945. The present arrangements, of which details were given in my answer, avoid the difficulty referred to by the hon. and gallant Member in the majority of cases, and I do not consider that it would be practicable to go beyond these arrangements.

Mr. Renton: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the number of men who are kept in hospital when they should be discharged is being reduced?.

Mr. Lawson: If the hon. Member will look at the answer I gave i.1December I think he will be quite satisfied with the attention that has been paid to them and the length of time they are retained now.

Mr. George Wallace: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a considerable amount of anxiety and misunderstanding on this matter among men in Service hospitals who should not have to suffer such anxiety?

Mr. Lawson: I think it would be very useful if the answer I gave in December could be more widely circulated in order that people outside should know.

Italy (Hurting Accommodation)

Mr. Garry Allighan: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is

aware that at the Benevento camp in Italy, men have to sleep 12 to a hut, measuring six feet by nine feet, which has no light, warmth or proper sanitation, without beds and huddled on stone floors; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this matter.

Mr. Lawson: My information from the Command concerned is that there is no substance in this complaint. The sleeping accommodation and the provision of light, heat and sanitation is in accordance with authorised scales

Mr. Allighan: Will the Minister look further into it if I send him the details of the complaints which have come to me from more than one man?

Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir; I would be very pleased to look into the matter if I could get something more specific than this. I think it will be of interest to the House to know that the existing scale in C.M.F. is 45 square feet per man. I do not understand the Question at all, which states that the space amounts to 54 feet for 12 men.

Home Guard (Defence Medal)

Mr. Grimston: asked the Secretary of State for War if he.will issue instructions as to the procedure whereby members of the Home Guard, who are eligible, may apply for the Defence Medal.

Squadron-Leader Emrys Roberts: asked the Secretary. of State for War why there is still delay in the supply of the Defence Medal ribbon to the Home Guard: and why post offices have not been supplied with Army Form B 2068.

Mr. Lawson: I understand that the supplies of Army Form B 2068 are at present held in bulk by the General Post Office, who will distribute them to Post Offices throughout the country as soon as all the forms applicable to members of the other Services eligible for the Defence Medal are ready. An official announcement will then be made as to the procedure for claiming the award. As regards the supply of ribbon I would refer the hon. and gallant Member for Merioneth (Squadron-Leader Emrys Roberts) to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) on 29th January.

Personal Case

Mr. Grimston: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the result of the, special action, following repeated efforts,


which he took on 30th October last to obtain a medical report on T/14708503 Driver Dyer, E. M.

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Member will no doubt by now have received the letter which I sent to him on 7th February.

Mr. Grimston: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I only received that letter after putting down a Question and that it has, in fact, taken eight months of correspondence and two Parliamentary Questions to get any report at all about this case? Is he further aware that the information now given is so meagre as to leave me with the suspicion that the case has been mishandled by the medical authorities, and is he ready to go further into the case with me?

Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir, I shall be very pleased, since the hon. Gentleman puts the point, to have a conversation with him about the matter, and to look further into it if necessary. I am very sorry about the delay in these matters and particularly in a case like this. I also want to thank the House for their tolerance and understanding in this matter, because we have got the number of letters down a little now—we are receiving now only 54,000 a week.

Prisoner of War Camp,. Nether Headon

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithswaite: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied that Northern Command Order No. 97 of 1946 is being sympathetically administered as regards other ranks at prisoner of war camp, Nether Headon.

Mr. Lawson: My information is that this is a very well run camp and that the order in question has been administered as sympathetically as the manpower situation and the requirements of security have permitted. The hon. and gallant Member will appreciate. that it is essential to have a proportion of officers and other ranks on duty at all times in a prisoner of war camp.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Is the Secretary of State aware that the chief matter of complaint has been rectified since the Question was put down and inquiry made?

Mr. Lawson: The hon. and gallant Gentleman can find great satisfaction in

the fact that I have paid attention to his grievance.

Compassionate Cases

Mr. J. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for War how many applications for compassionate leave, postings or release have been made to commanding officers by men or women serving in the Armed Forces since the end of the war against Japan; how many applications in.this respect have been made by Members of Parliament and how.many of these applications which have been previously rejected by commanding officers have been approved after representations have been made to him by Members of Parliament or welfare organisations.

Mr. Lawson: I regret that no records of the information asked for are kept. I should like to emphasise that I cannot accept any implication that the decision in compassionate cases depends in any way on the source of the application. Each case is dealt with on its merits on the basis of the facts available.

Mr. Lewis: Now that the national emergency no longer. exists, does not my right hon. Friend think that recommendations which are made by his Department for compassionate release should no longer rest with the commanding officer?

Mr. Lawson: That is a matter for consideration.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider extending the period for which a commanding officer may grant compassionate leave?

Mr. Lawson: I cannot at the same time withdraw the commanding officer's consent and give him more discretion.

Polish Armed Forces, Italy

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the present strength of the Polish armed forces in Italy.

Mr. Lawson: Approximately 107,000 men.

Sir S. Reed: May I ask how long the Secretary of State proposes to keep this army in Italy for, duties which are not wanted, reasons which do not exist, and at an expense to the British taxpayer of approximately£2,000,000 a month?

Mr. Lawson: I was asked for statistical information. This matter is receiving the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and he is hoping to give an answer on that subject shortly.

Northallerton Military Prison(Escapes)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement on the recent break-out of 16 men from Northallerton military prison, and the events leading up to it; and if he is satisfied that conditions at this prison conform in every respect with the recommendations of Oliver Report

Mr. Lawson: On Sunday, 3rd February. 16 soldiers under sentence escaped from the military prison and detention barracks, Northallerton. They escaped from the parade ground through the back gate of the prison, using the stools which they had just brought out of the chapel as implements. Fourteen of them have since been recaptured. The recommendations of the Oliver Committee have been fully implemented at Northallerton, except that owing to the general shortage of medical officers the medical officer is a civil medical practitioner, and is not employed full-time. He is, however, immediately available when required.

Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been another similar escape since the one mentioned in the Question, and is he satisfied that everything is all right in this prison? Is there to be a court of inquiry, or a public inquiry?

Mr. Lawson: I drew the attention of the command at once to the matter and asked for an investigation. I understand that it was investigated within two days of the escape and all the soldiers under sentence were seen and there were no complaints.

Mr. Turton: Could the right hon. Gentleman supply a new back gate to this prison as it has been broken through twice in the last 10 days?

Lieut.-Colonel Mackeson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Questions of this nature are not helpful to discipline?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIGARETTES (SALONICA)

Mr. J. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that

cigarettes manufactured in this country, marked N.A.A.F.I. Issue, are being sold by street vendors in Salonica at 4s. 6d. per packet; and what steps he is taking to prevent this

Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir. The military authorities in Greece are taking all possible steps to deal with the situation, including the provision of guards for stocks during unloading and in transit.

Oral Answers to Questions — E.N.S.A.

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for War if he has now examined the evidence about the work of E.N.S.A.; and what arrangements are being made to continue E.N.S.A. work.

Mr. Lawson: As regards the first part of the Question I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith) on 1st November, 1945. E.N.S.A. was an emergency wartime creation and its work has now virtually ended. It will, however, continue to operate on a reduced scale until the Autumn while future arrangements for live entertainment are being considered. The provision of cinema entertainment is being undertaken by the Army Kinema Corporation which should have relieved E.N.S.A. and the Army Kinema Services of all their obligations by June of this year.

Sir W. Smithers: I asked if the right hon. Gentleman has examined the evidence of all the scandals arising out of E.N.S.A.

Mr. Lawson: 1 have referred the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council.

Captain Francis Noel-Baker: Would it be possible for my right hon. Friend to speak a little more audibly, as those of us at this end of the Chamber cannot hear his replies?

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL PREFERENCE

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Prime Minister whether in view of the assistance rendered to this country during the present wheat and food crisis by the


Dominions, the Government -will give an assurance that they will favourably consider the maintenance of Imperial Preference to the Dominion countries that have assisted.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Our warmest thanks are due to other Governments of the British Commonwealth for the special efforts which they have so generously promised to make at the present time to increase still further their contributions towards maintaining world food supplies. There will be further opportunity later for expressing our gratitude to them more fully. As regards the latter part of the Question, it has already been made clear that there is no question of the reduction of Imperial Preference except as part of mutually satisfactory arrangements to the benefit of all parties concerned.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that never in the whole course of the history of this country has there been such a wonderful response from the Dominions to the home country, and ought we not to be ever mindful of it?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I was endeavouring to express that, however inadequately.

Mr. De la Bère: I am glad to have that confirmation from the Prime Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR (REPATRIATION)

Mr. Edelman: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many anti-Nazi German prisoners of war are available for the Oberon scheme for repatriating German prisoners of war; how many prisoners of war have thus been repatriated; and what steps he is taking to accelerate the repatriation of anti-Nazi prisoners of war in order that they may help in the reconstruction of a democratic Germany.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): There are at present in this country some 19,000 anti-Nazi German prisoners-of-war who have been screened for consideration under this scheme. Some 2,200 have been selected as suitable for return to Germany. About 650 have been repatriated. Three hundred and fifty miners have also been

selected for priority return. The Control Commission in Germany are ready to accept any number of anti-Nazi miners, bank officials, lawyers, factory managers, police, as well as experienced workers in agriculture and food processing, transport, post and telegraph services and public utilities. Repatriation of these prisoners is proceeding as fast as possible

Mr. Edelman: Will the Minister bear in mind that the sooner these anti-Nazi German prisoners of war return to Germany, the sooner will the administrative burden on the British element of the Allied Control Commission be lightened?

Mr. Hynd: We are acutely aware of that, and that is why we have taken such trouble to. screen and train these men, but there are physical difficulties in transporting large bodies of men to Germany.

Commander Douglas Marshall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the shortage of labour in agriculture, and will he do everything possible to see that this country is not deprived of food in order to reconstruct Germany?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (LAND CONTROL)

Mr. Tiffany: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ii it is his intention to introduce into that part of Germany under his control a land reform similar to that introduced by the Provincial Administration of Brandenburg, West Pomerania, Mecklenburg and Thuringia.

Mr. J. Hynd: No, Sir. Conditions in the Russian and British zones are not identical, and a land reform of the kind referred to would not meet the situation in our zone. My hon. Friend can rest assured that the elimination of Nazi and military influences in agriculture, as well as other industries, is being actively pursued, and the question of the distribution and control of the larger estates is the subject of special consideration.

Mr. Tiffany: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that whilst agreement might be expressed on the other side, it is not altogether palatable over here?

Mr. Hynd: I can assure the hon. Member that the other side were not consulted when this decision was made.

Major Wilkes: Can the Minister say what sanctions are imposed against large landowners in the British zone who have supported the Nazi Government?

Mr. Hynd: That is an entirely different question, but I think my hon. and gallant. Friend will find that ample information has been given on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Minister's Visit to America(Cost)

Sir W. Smithers asked: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the cost of the visit of the Lord President of the Council to North America was borne by the tax payer; and, if so, what was the amount involved.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): Yes, Sir. The cost of my right hon. Friend's visit to the United States and Canada, like those of Ministers in previous Governments, was borne on public funds. The cost was about 670.

Motor Taxation

Sir G. Fox: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, as the date for the introduction of the cubic capacity tax on motor-cars is of great importance to the motor-car industry, he will give an assurance that this tax will be introduced not later than 1st January, 1947.

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. 1st January, 1947; will be the date of the change.

United States Loan

Mrs. Castle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has initiated conversations with our overseas suppliers to secure supplies through a continuation of the sterling area pool and the payments agreements now in force, in case of a postponement or refusal of the loan by the U.S.A.

Mr. Dalton: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply on 28th January, to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget).

Mrs. Castle: Have representations been made, or will they be made, to the United States Government to the effect that an early decision on the loan by Congress is an essential part of the contract so far as this country is concerned, if the neces

sary arrangements are to be made to safeguard the livelihood of our people?

Mr. Dalton: I prefer to leave my answer in the words I used.

Mr. Norman Smith: Will my right hon. Friend say whether there is any chance of our getting the loan?

Interest-Free Loans(Repayment)

Lieut.-Colonel Sharp: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when, and by what procedure, loans made to the State, free of interest, for the duration of the war, will be repaid.

Mr. Dalton: Any holder of an interest-free loan certificate will be repaid if he makes application to the Bank of England—particularly under the new regime.

Income Tax Assessment

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will cause the methods of assessment to Income Tax, and particularly the methods of assessment under the P.A.Y.E. scheme, to be greatly simplified, so that Income Tax payers may be enabled to calculate without undue difficulty the amounts of tax due from them.

Mr. Dalton: I am studying this question. The amount of tax due under P.A.Y.E. can, of course, be ascertained from the Tax Tables. A considerable simplification will be effected next April, when two million taxpayers will become exempt.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the Chancellor aware of the delays that have occurred owing to the intricacies of the Income Tax Regulations as regards P.A.Y.E. taxpayers, and is he aware that one of the great complaints is that the amounts deducted vary, even though wages do not vary week by week?

Mr. Dalton: As I told the hon. and gallant Member, I am studying the question carefully. It is one we have inherited at the Treasury. I think that on balance there is no doubt that the P.A.Y.E. system is a great improvement on what went before, but there are complexities in it. We are seeing whether we cannot reduce these to the greatest possible extent, but it is a tricky business.

Captain Crookshank: Can the Chancellor say how the fact that there are to be 2,000,000 fewer taxpayers makes any difference in the way of simplification for those who still have to pay?

Mr. Dalton: I did not say "for those who still have to pay." It is a simplification for those who will not have to pay.

Blind Person's Pension

Mr. Sydney Silverman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the blind person pension payable to Mrs. Parkinson, 32, Sloane Street, Nelson, has been reduced from 8s. to 2s.

Mr. Dalton: Because Mrs. Parkinson's means, which had previously entitled her to a pension of 8s., increased so as to entitle her, under the Blind Persons' Act, 1936, to a pension of 2s. only.

Mr. Silverman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her means increased by 6s. only because Service pensions, to one of which she was entitled, had been increased in order to meet the rising cost of living? Is he also aware that, the whole of the benefit of the increase went to the Blind Persons' Committee, and indeed a little more than that, because she lost 2d. on the transaction?

Mr. Dalton: All this may be true, but that is the present law, which may be liable to amendment at an early date.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Has the Chancellor any statement to make about the other Nelson pension?

Mr. Dalton: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that down and I will give him an answer.

Mr. Silverman: Is my right hon. Friend saying that it is the intention of the Government to amend the legislation so as to make sure that the increase of Service pensions is not subject to an exception in the case of blind persons?

Mr. Dalton: I did not say half as much as that.

Children's Clothing (Purchase Tax)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will discontinue the Purchase Tax in respect of clothing for children up to the age of 1o years, in view of the special hardship

and heavy expense incurred by parents who are at the present time endeavouring to provide for their families

Mr. Dalton: Garments and boots and shoes for young children have never been subject to Purchase Tax. Other articles of clothing, such as hats, caps and gloves, are exempt from tax if they are "Utility" goods.

Mr. De la Bère: Are we to understand from the Chancellor's answer that all clothing for. children under 10 years of age is free of Purchase Tax?

Mr. Dalton: Exactly what I said in my answer.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer was not pellucidly clear? It was impossible to tell whether it was comprehensive.

War Prisoners' Wives (Income Tax)

Colonel Gomme-Dunean: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether wife of a prisoner of war may be treated, for the purposes of Income Tax, as femme sole for any year in which her husband was absent from Great Britain as a prisoner for nine months or more of that year.

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, if the husband was absent from this country for the whole of an Income Tax year and if such assessment is to the joint advantage of husband and wife. Where the husband is absent for any part of a year, the assessment depends on the particular circumstances of the case. I am anxious that all such cases should be treated sympathetically, and shall be glad to look into any case which the hon. and gallant Member may like to send me.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will restrict the funds available for the purchase of U.S. tobacco in order that the dollar exchange may be used instead for the.purchase of food; and whether he will make arrangements with the Board of Trade so that tobacco. is supplied from Turkey, which country is.anxious to take our goods in exchange.

Mr. Dalton: I hope to refer to this question during the Debate on Thursday. My right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade advises me that we are already providing British


smokers with as much Turkish tobacco as they are prepared to smoke.

Mr. Stokes: In this statement on Thursday will the Chancellor bear in mind that the United States imports£10 million worth of tobacco annually from Turkey, and is he aware that much of that is re-exported to this country from the United States, for which we pay dollars? Would it not be better to buy it direct?

Mr. Dalton: We already buy at least as much as we can get away with.

Mrs. Leah Manning: Would not the Chancellor undertake some propaganda in his Department, such as was undertaken by the Ministry of Food to make us have a taste for dried eggs, in order to make men have a taste for this kind of tobacco?

United Kingdom Oils (Preference)

Colonel Erroll: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present effective preference on light oils, manufactured in the United Kingdom from indigenous materials; and heavy oils so manufactured and used as road fuel in the United Kingdom; and for how long, and at what rate, the guaranteed preference will continue to operate.

Mr. Dalton: Ninepence a gallon in both cases. A preference of 8d. a gallon is guaranteed until 1950, subject to the conditions set out in the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1938.

Northern Ireland (Reserved Services)

Dr. Little: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the amount paid towards the upkeep of the reserved services from the money collected by the Imperial Government in Northern Ireland during the past year; and what is the balance remaining after these demands have been met

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): The figures are published in Table VI of the Financial Statement issued by the Minister of Finance when opening the Northern Ireland Budget. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the Statement of 21st November, 1945

Dr. Little: Can the Minister say to what Department or Departments of the Gov-

ernment of Northern Ireland this money is issued, and for what purpose is it given?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is very difficult to deal with this matter by question and answer in the House. I have undertaken to send the hon. Member a copy of the statement, and I hope he will find that useful enough for his purpose.

Mr. Gallacher: Would the Financial Secretary recommend the Prime Minister to abolish the boundary, and thus end the woes and worries of Northern Ireland?

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPORTS (DOLLAR EXPENDITURE)

Lieut.-Colonel Byers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the major items of imports into this country upon which dollars have been expended during the past year, giving the total dollars spent on each item with particular reference to films and tobacco.

Mrs. Leah Manning: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the amount in dollars expended with the U.S.A. on films, tobacco, petrol, foodstuffs and miscellaneous commodities, respectively, since the ending of Lend-Lease.

Mr. Dalton: I am circulating in the Official Report figures showing the principal imports from the United States in 1945 as a whole, and in the last four months of that year when Lend-Lease had ended.

Mr. Manning: In making these allocations, is the need for food or the need for revenue the dominating factor? Will my right hon. Friend, in the difficult period we are now facing, consider the possibility of concentrating the whole of our dollar expenditure on food?

Mr. Dalton: This is a matter which is due for Debate on Thursday, when I hope to be successful in catching Mr. Speaker's eye.

Mr. J. Lewis: Cannot the Chancellor undertake to lend support to any acceptable proposals to establish production in this country or in the Empire of those raw materials for which we have previously relied on the United States.

Mr. Dalton: That is going a little wide of the Question. Perhaps this matter might be raised on Thursday too.

Following are the figures:

Imports from the United States of America.


Category in Trade Returns.
Commodity.
Year 1945.
Sept.-Dec., 1945.



 (£000)
 (£000)


I.A.
…
Maize
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
1,488
—




Peas and beans
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
962 
331


Wheat meal and flour
…
…
…
…
…
…
2,733 
1,289


Other grain and flour
…
…
…
…
…
…
913
63


I.D.
…
Bacon and hams
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
3,007 
2



…
Pork
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
8,344 
—


Other descriptions of meat
…
…
…
…
…
1,219
17


I.E.
…
Cheese
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
3,630 
1,171




Dried Eggs
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
9,596 
1,8l8


Unsweetened condensed milk
…
…
…
…
…
2,675 
496


Unsweetened milk powder
…
…
…
…
…
1,822 
271


I.F.
…
Apples
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
460
—


I.G.
…
Unfermented fruit juice 
…
…
…
…
…
…
627
231


I.H.
…
Bladders, casings and sausage skins
…
…
…
…
494
54




Raisins
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
1,730
—


Lard
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
4,905
1,203


Canned vegetables
…
…
…
…
…
…
1,441
77


All other food and drink 
…
…
…
…
…
…
3,087
369


I.I.
…
Unmanufactured tobacco
…
…
…
…
…
43,996
10,992


II.B.
…
Sulphur
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
1,690
497


II.E.
…
Sawn timber—





Oak
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
1,273
532


Other descriptions
…
…
…
…
…
…
1,815
812


Other wood and timber
…
…
…
…
…
…
749
136


11.F.
…
Raw cotton
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
14.355
2,938


II.J.
…
Crude petroleum
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
1,539
293


11.K.
…
Undressed fur skins
…
…
…
…
…
…
1,718
1,648


ILL.
…
Dry chemical wood pulp 
…
…
…
…
…
…
1,643
84


II.M.
…
Synthetic rubber 
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
6,143
1,342


II.N.
…
Agricultural and horticultural seeds
…
…
…
…
1,070
133


III.C.
…
Iron and steel
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
2,460
1


III.D.
…
Electrolytic copper
…
…
…
…
…
…
1,345
88




Other non-ferrous metals
…
…
…
…
…
906
95


III.E.
…
Cinematograph film—





Blank
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
313
5


Exposed 
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
148
60


Other cutlery hardware implements and instruments
…
2,567
424


III.F.
…
Wireless apparatus
…
…
…
…
…
…
9,121
647




Other electrical goods and apparatus
…
…
…
…
3,835
136


III.G.
…
Machine tools
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
2,814
680




Other machinery
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
13,412
1,972 


III.H.
…
Plywood
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
3,455
1,122




Prefabricated houses
…
…
…
…
…
…
5,525
2,477


III.I.
…
Grey unbleached cotton piece-goods
…
…
…
…
875
141


III.K.
…
Silk and artificial silk yarns and manufactures
…
…
1,306
95


III.M.
…
Apparel
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
2,410
152


III.O.
…
Carbon blacks from natural gas 
…
…
…
…
…
1,606
563




All other chemicals, drugs, dyes and colours 
…
…
…
5,627
695


III.P.
…
Refined petroleum
…
…
…
…
…
…
115,798
10,085




Paraffin wax
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
1,154
269


Other manufactured oils, fats and resins
…
…
…
2,555
712


III.R.
…
Paper, cardboard, etc.
…
…
…
…
…
…
4,017
789


III.S.
…
Vehicles
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
2,645
124


III.U.
…
Books, etc
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
 442
59




Celluloid
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
1,632
493


IV.
…
Parcel Post
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
1,227
412




 All other goods, other than munitions 
…
…
…
…
6,374
1,024



318,693
 50,419


Payments for film royalties amounted to£16,800,000 in the full year. 


These figures do not, of course, represent actual expenditure of dollars, since many of the supplies were obtained under Lend-Lease. The prices assigned to Lend-Lease goods are necessarily arbitrary, and many of these goods were imported for purely military purposes.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAW OFFICERS (INCLUSIVE SALARIES)

Mr. William Wells: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the possibility of taking steps so that the law officers shall be paid inclusive salaries rather than on a basis of salary plus fees.

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. It has been decided that for the future the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General shall receive all-inclusive salaries of£10,000 and£7,000 a year respectively. Fees for contentious business will continue to be paid, but will be set off against these salaries. This change has been made at the Law Officers' request and will result in a noticeable saving to the Exchequer.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING SOCIETIES (CAPITAL)

63. Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the number of building societies in Great Britain; and the aggregate amount of their capital.

Mr. Dalton: Nine hundred and five in 1944 with a capital, in the form of funds invested or deposited, of£734 millions.

Mr. Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of that capital is available for current building operations, and will he take steps in conjunction with the Minister of Health to see that.that money is married to building operations?

Mr. Dalton: The hon. Gentleman has put exactly that question down to the Minister of Health for the day after tomorrow so we had better not cross the wires.

Mr. Smith: Why not?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

New Ministries (Staffing)

Wing-Commander Cooper: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the procedure that is adopted by his Department, when a new Ministry is formed, in determining the number and grades of civil servants on the establishment.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The number and grading of staff needed for the initial

operations of the new Department are settled in outline in consultation with the Minister designate or his representative. Thereafter officers of the Treasury maintain close touch with the Establishments department of the new Ministry in order to adjust the cadres to the character and volume of the work as it develops.

Wing-Commander Cooper: Is any regard paid to modern methods of administration, and is advice obtained from such expert and independent bodies as the Institute of Industrial Administration in drawing up these establishments?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am very sorry, but I am afraid I missed most of that supplementary question. I could not hear it.

Wing-Commander Cooper: May I repeat the question? Is any regard paid to modern methods of administration, and in particular to suggestions which might be obtained from such organisations as the Institute of Industrial Administration? Further, is my hon. Friend aware of the procedure used by the Air Ministry during the war to keep a check on establishments? Would he be willing to adopt some similar procedure for the Civil Service?

Mr. Hall: All relevant matters are taken into consideration. The Treasury is aware of what went on at the Air Ministry during the war.

Press Advertising

Lieutenant William Shepherd: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what steps he is taking to reduce the abnormal Government expenditure of£737,000 in Press advertising which took place in the six months ended 31st December, 1945.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The level of Press advertising has been the subject of careful review in connection with the establishment of the new Government Information Office, but I regret that no decrease is considered practicable at present.

Lieutenant Shepherd: Will the Minister say why Ministries cannot adopt a single column advertisement, as commercial firms are compelled to do? Why should they have a double column?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: That does not arise out of the question.

Lieutenant Shepherd: It does.

Major Bruce: In view of the continuous Press campaign of misrepresentation against the Government recently, would not the Minister consider increasing vastly his expenditure on advertising?

Earl Winterton: Can the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to consider what the Member behind is advocating and see that this money is not used for political purposes?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I was asked a definite question, and the question which the Noble Lord now puts to me is quite irrelevant.

Earl Winterton: Then I give the hon. Gentleman notice that I will raise this on the Adjournment. It is a disgraceful accusation.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Noble Lord has his remedy.

Major Bruce: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the Noble Lord to say my accusation is disgraceful?

Mr. Speaker: It is not out of Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING

Sponsored Programmes

Mr. Robens: asked the Minister of Information whether, as an alternative to increasing the cost of a wireless licence, he has considered the allocation of a wavelength for sponsored programmes.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): In my right hon. Friend's absence abroad, I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend. is not prepared to depart from the policy of not permitting the broadcasting of advertisement or sponsored programmes.

Mr. Robens: Is the Minister aware that prior to the war a very large proportion of British listeners on Sundays tuned in to European stations who were broadcasting sponsored programmes?

Mr. Morrison: I dare say that was so, but nevertheless we think it would be a bad thing to introduce into our conditions.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the Minister consider what ways and means can be devised of reducing the cost of wireless licences to old age pensioners?

Wireless Licence Charges

Mr. Benn Levy: asked the Minister of Information if he will consider making arrangements with the Ministry of National Insurance whereby wireless licences would be granted to applicants who contract to add an extra 5d. weekly to their National Insurance contributions.

Mr. H. Morrison: This idea is not without its attractions, but I have been advised that the additional staff and expenditure involved for putting this scheme into operation would outweigh its advantages.

Mr. Levy: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great number of people who are willing to pay 10s. a year who do in fact find it very difficult to lay their hands on 20s. at any one time? Has 'he any other possible scheme in mind?

Mr. Morrison: I do not accept that the difficulty is as great as my hon. Friend suggests. We have looked at every alternative, including the half-yearly payments, but that would involve a substantial additional staff to the collecting organisation and about£250,000 for collection. Therefore, we reluctantly felt that we must reject that alternative.

Captain Crookshank: Is not the Lord President aware that there is a perfectly good system of small savings available by savings stamps through the Post Office?

Mr. Morrison: That is an alternative to my hon. Friend's suggestion which it is certainly fair for the public to consider.

Mr. De la Bère: What justification is there for it at all?

Flight-Lieutenant Haire: Will my right hon. Friend agree that if everybody paid for his licence who is liable to pay for it there would be no need to increase the charge at all?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, I do not. The Post Office is much more clever at finding sinners than my hon. Friend thinks.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: In view of the very unsatisfactory replies on the whole question of wireless licences, I should like to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION (ANGLO-AMERICAN AGREEMENTS

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: (by Private Notice): asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he has any statement to make on the Agreements reached at Bermuda between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America on the subject of civil aviation.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Ivor Thomas): Yes, Sir. The Agreements signed last evening between the United States and this country at Bermuda are an achievement satisfactory to both countries. The Bermuda Conference has reconciled the desire of the United States to avoid regulation which might be construed as restricting the full exploitation of air transport and the desire of the United Kingdom to ensure that international air services are developed on an orderly basis which will eliminate wasteful competition and uneconomic subsidies.
The United States Government have agreed that all fares on air services of mutual interest to the two countries should form the subject of agreement, and this they propose to achieve in two stages. Firstly, they have agreed to recognise for a period of one year the status of the International Air Transport Association, an international operators' organisation as a rate-fixing body acting through route conferences. They have also undertaken to seek legislation from Congress which will empower the Civil Aeronautics Board to control rates. This is, in itself, a considerable advance on the position which confronted us before the Bermuda Conference began.
As regards the control of capacity operated on the routes, it has been recognised that pre-determination on the basis of estimated traffic potentials is beset with practical difficulties, and, instead, it has been agreed that the principle for which we stand, namely, the maintenance of a close relationship between capacity operated on the various routes of mutual interest and traffic offering, can best be put into practical effect by providing for an ex post facto review on the basis of this principle. Machinery for close and continuing collaboration between the two Governments will be established to this end.
Turning to the controversial issue of the Fifth Freedom, I cannot do better than quote the text of the Agreement on this subject. It reads as follows:
 It is the understanding of both Governments that services provided by a designated air carrier under the Agreement and its Annex shall retain as their primary objective the provision of capacity adequate to the traffic demands between the country of which such air carrier is a national and the country of ultimate destination of the traffic. The right to embark or disembark on such services international traffic destined for and coming from third countries at a point or points on the route specified in the Annex to the Agreement shall be applied in accordance with the general principles of orderly development to which both Governments subscribe and shall be subject to the general principle that capacity should be related:
(a)to traffic requirements between the country of origin and the countries of destination;
(b)to the requirements of through air line operation, and
(c)to the traffic requirements of the areas through which the airline passes after taking account of local and regional ser vices "
In addition to the Air Transport Agreement, the Heads of an Agreement relating to the use of the Leased Bases for civil purposes have been initialled ad referendum. The Bases to which I refer are those in the Western Hemisphere which were leased to the United States for military purposes under the Bases Agreement of 1941.
The particular Bases which have formed the subject of these discussions are those in Colonial Territories, and the Heads of Agreement contain a clause which makes it clear that they are subject to the preparation of a formal contract and to the solution of certain questions before any Agreement to use the Bases for civil purposes can become effective.
The final text of the documents as signed and initialled are not yet available in this country. A reasonably full and accurate summary was, however, released to the Press and was published this morning. As soon as the final text of the Agreement is available, it will be published as a White Paper.

Mr. Steele: On a point of Order. in view of the fact that we on these Benches never heard a single word and do not know what the statement is about, would it not be possible for the Government to consider issuing these statements to hon. Members at 2 o'clock before we come in and thus save the time of the House?

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: On that point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that there is general complaint on these Benches about the poor acoustics of the Chamber and of the fact that we can hardly hear any speaker— [Hon. Members: "Speak up."]and can hardly hear any hon. Member unless he happens to be facing— in this direction? May I seriously suggest that steps be taken to improve the position either by Ministers raising their voices on the Front Bench or by installing some more suitable listening apparatus?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that that is not a matter for me, but the hon. Gentle-man can put down a Question to the Minister of Works, who is responsible for this Chamber.

Mr. Gallacher:: Further to that point of Order, is it not the case that, this afternoon, every word said by even the smallest Member of the Government— the Secretary of State for Scotland— was heard all over the House?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether we have or have not agreed to sign the Fifth Freedom, as we would like a definite answer on that subject; and, secondly, whether we are to understand that it is the Government's case that there has been some quid pro quo on this matter, and how long the United States intends, or has promised, to agree to the international regulation of fares?

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I would like to apologise to the House if I was not audible. The Agreement itself is very complex, but it will be published as a White Paper before long. I cannot add to what I said on the Fifth Freedom. The Question is not susceptible of that simple answer which the hon. Member desires. The acceptance of the Fifth Freedom is subject to all the conditions I have enumerated. With regard to fares, the United States has accepted the principle of the international regulation of fares, and it is necessary now to seek the approval of Congress.

Mr. Eden: I think we all tried to follow the statement which the hon. Gentleman has given, but, even for those who heard it, it was, admittedly, an extremely complicated one. I do not want to press further questions now, as the issues are

very wide and complicated, but we may, when we have had time to study the Agreement, have to ask the Government for time to discuss it.

Mr. Hulbert: May I ask the hon. Gentleman what, under the new Agreement, is the position of the United Kingdom vis-a-vis those countries with which we have already entered into agreements, and whether he will give us an assurance that at Bermuda the Government have not signed away the sovereignty of any of these bases?

Mr. Thomas: With regard to the latter part of the question, I can give a categorical assurance in the affirmative to the hon. Member. With regard to the Agreements with other countries, the United States has accepted the same principles that govern our agreements with the other countries. We have in this Agreement adopted a different method of achieving the same result.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: May I ask whether the Dominions were brought into consultation in these matters?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, Sir. The Dominions were kept informed at all stages.

Captain -Sir Peter Macdonald: May I ask if the Colonial Governments were consulted before the Agreement was entered into at Bermuda and whether it was submitted to them for approval before it was agreed?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, Sir. All points on which the Colonial Governments were concerned were submitted to them and their approval was secured.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May we have an assurance that cabotage still includes traffic between the United Kingdom and the Colonies?

Mr. Thomas: As I understand the Question, Yes, Sir.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Does the Agreement mean that the Americans can fly passengers from our country to our own Colonies?

Mr. Thomas: No, Sir. That is the same question of cabotage. Traffic between the United Kingdom and our Colonies is reserved for our own air lines.

Sir T. Moore: As Congress approval is required to this arrangement, from the


American point of view, surely it is only reasonable that this House should give approval to it from our point of view, especially in view of the fact that bases in the Empire are vitally affected?

Mr. Thomas: There are different constitutional systems in the two countries. Congressional approval is needed, I understand, only on the question of rates.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: May I ask the Minister if, when he issues the text of the Agreement or publishes it as a White Paper, he will be good enough to publish some explanatory memorandum— because the text, I gather, is somewhat obscure— in order to try to elucidate the many important points and to state in simple language what the Agreement does or does not do?

Mr. Thomas: I will consider it, but, on the surface, I am inclined to think that it is not a good suggestion. I would prefer that the right hon. Gentleman should read the Agreements and then consider whether he still needs an explanation.

Mr. Macmillan: Am I to understand that the hon. Gentleman wishes to take refuge in obscurity?

Mr. Thomas: I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman can decide that the language is obscure until he has seen the text of the Agreements.

Colonel Erroll: May I ask the Minister whether any agreement was reached on the cost of air freights and if there was any agreement regarding the carriage of air mail?

Mr. Thomas: There is no agreement about air mail. Freight rates will be covered by the same general principles that I have outlined.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: asked the Leader of the House if, for the convenience of the House, he could say what are the Government's intentions regarding the Committee stage of the Bill the House is about to discuss, namely, the Trade Disputes Bill, in the event of its receiving a Second Reading.

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. We hope to get the Second Reading in due course.
The Government have considered the Committee stage, and we think this is a Bill having sufficient relationship to certain constitutional principles to make it right that the Bill should be taken on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Eden: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman also if we may be assured that we shall be given ample time on the Floor of the House, as has always been given by every Government, of whatever party or complexion, on these particularly controversial issues?

Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman may be assured that the Government will be agreeable to give such time as they consider fair and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Mr. Pickthorn: Will the Government, in making that judgment, remember that, on the occasion of the passing of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill, there was, I think, a 27-days' Debate?

Mr. Morrison: I am not a bit surprised. That was in the good old days when Governments did not want to pass much legislation.

Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, on the contrary, it was in order to give the country a full opportunity to consider the Measure?

POLICE BILL

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.[No. 75.]

STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS, ETC.

Eighth Report from the Select Committee, brought up, and read, as follows:

Your Committee have considered the Drafts of the Government of India (High Court Judges) (Amendment) Order, 1946, the Government of India (Adaptation of Acts of Parliament) (Amendment) Order, 1946, the Government of Burma (Shan States Federal Fund) Order, 1946, and the Government of Burma (Governors'


Emergency Allowances, Repair of Furnishings) Order, 1946, copies of which were presented on 4th February, and the Electoral Registration Regulations, 1946, a copy of which was presented on 7th February, and are of the opinion that there are no reasons for drawing the special attention of the House to them, on any of the grounds set out in the Order of Reference of the Committee.

To lie. upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have agreed to—

Local Government (Financial Provisions) Bill,

Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, '' An Act to repeal the Straits Settlements Act, 1866, and to make further provision for the government of the territories heretofore known as the Straits Settlements." [Straits Settlements (Repeal) Bill [Lords].

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) for One hour after a quarter past Nine o'clock.— [The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — TRADE DISPUTES AND TRADE UNIONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.31 p.m.

The Attorney - General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
In view of what has just been said about the acoustics of the House, I think I must begin by way of apology for my voice. 1 shall try to make it heard in every quarter of the House, but it is still suffering a little from the effects of influenza. I must ask the House to bear with me in that respect.
I learn from the evening newspapers which settle policy for hon. Members opposite, that this Bill is to be the subject of fierce and bitter contest at every stage. I certainly do not complain of that. There may be some who think that hon. Members on the opposite side of the House might be more prudent to reserve such intellectual powder and shot as they have got for the more fundamental matters which the House has to consider from time to time, but I would not presume to advise on a matter of that sort.

Mr. Prescott: May I interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman? If this Measure is not fundamental, why is it being introduced.

The Attorney-General: If the hon. Gentleman will wait and listen, if he understands he will see why. The language of hyperbole has been so lavishly used about this Bill; the campaign which has been conducted against it by the Conservative Party in the country outside has been so characterised by political misrepresentation and chicanery, and so divorced from the facts relating to this matter, that I think I ought, at the very outset, to try to put the-


matter in its proper perspective and explain, if I can, in a sentence or two, what this Bill does not do, and what it does. Those who say, as Conservative propagandists outside this House have said— we shall wait to hear whether they repeat it here— that this is a Bill which is intended to legalise and encourage the. general strike are saying that which is. completely false. This Bill will legalise nothing that was illegal in 1927.
In so far as this Bill improves, as it undoubtedly will improve, the atmosphere in industry— [Interruption]. Hon. Members should try to view this matter with detachment, and free-from political prejudice, and they would do well to remember that for 20 years the Act of 1927 has been a sore, a small sore, it may be, but a running sore, which has debilitated our industrial body politic, and, to the extent that we remove it and improve the atmosphere in industry, this Bill will make strikes even less likely than they are at the present time. If this country should ever be faced— and I hope it will not— with the misfortune of a recurrence of a general strike, then at least this Bill will avoid a conflict with the law which, in existing circumstances, the law would inevitably lose with grave constitutional results.
Those who say, as Conservative propagandists outside this House have from time to time been saying, that this Bill is an attack upon the freedom and liberty of the individual, are saying something which they must know to be completely untrue. This Bill, in fact, restores certain hard-won and important individual freedoms, and it does so without threatening the liberty of any one in the slightest degree. Those who pretend, as Conservative propagandists outside this House have pretended, that this Bill is designed to compel people to contribute to political funds when they do not desire so to do, are saying that which is a grotesque travesty of the facts as established by previous experience. On the other hand— and let me say this quite frankly— this is really quite a modest little Bill. I am not going to pretend to the House— and I give hon. Members opposite the point at once— that this Bill is intended to make any great contribution to the building up of a new Heaven and a new earth. Of course it is not. This Bill plays only an indirect, and, in some senses, a psycho-

logical part in the Government's programme, but what it will do— and at least it will do this— will be to remove from the Statute Book an Act of Parliament, the perpetuation of which, in existing circumstances, is an undoubted and historical injustice.
Quite frankly, looking back at the 1927 legislation now, one can see that it very largely failed to achieve the purposes for which its supporters hoped and which many of its opponents feared. It had no practical effect whatever on the exercise of the right to strike— not a scrap. It imposed some inconvenience on the organisation of the trade unions. Also, although it resulted in what I suggest to the House was a wholly unjustifiable but not really significant diminution in the political funds of the trade unions, it did nothing to prevent the trade unions and the Labour Party going on from strength to strength. What it did do— and this is its importance, because we must get rid of this, if we are to maintain and strengthen the better feeling between both sides of industry which manifested itself during the war— was to create among the great mass of the working people of this country a bitter sense of injustice, a feeling that the courts of their country had been turned against them, a belief that the law had been vindictively manipulated to their disadvantage, and a feeling that their hard-won right to withhold their labour if they chose, which, after all, is the inalienable right of every free man, had been whittled away. It is to remove that sense of injustice, to do away with these unwarranted restrictions upon the rights of individuals as individuals, or in association together, that this Bill is presented to the House.
May I very diffidently express a view and a hope about the conduct of our discussion of this Bill? We all look forward to many important contributions from hon. and learned Members of this House, but I hope the fact that I, as Attorney-General, am moving the Second Reading of this Bill will not give a legal complexion to the whole of our proceedings. This discussion, if I may say so, ought not to become a kind of lawyers' holiday as did the Debates in 1927 and 1931. Never was so much legal advice given by so many at so small a cost, unless, indeed, it was to the professional reputations of those who give it, for never was


confusion worse confounded, or obscurity more obscured than it was at the end of the 22 or 27 days of the discussion of the original Act in 1927. The House is, of course, entitled to be advised on the legal implications of this Bill, and, for my part, I shall do my best, as I am sure will other hon. and learned Members, to advise the House on the legal aspects of the matter, with complete detachment. But, at bottom, the matters involved in this legislation are matters of common sense and of policy. I am very conscious of the fact that a legal qualification gives one no particular or special right to speak about these matters.
May I, then, at the outset, refer to matters which are of a non-legal nature? I shall do so quite shortly, with regard to the circumstances in which the 1927 legislation came to be passed. I do it not intending for a moment to revive old and, I hope, out-worn antagonisms, nor to discuss the merits of the matter as at that time, but in order to show the House, if I can, that the reasons, if any there were, which supported the 1927 legislation have long since ceased to have any kind of practical reality. So much so, indeed, that anybody who looks at this matter now with detachment, objectively, unbiased by any preconceived theories, must realise that the 1927 Act is as clear and as iniquitous a piece of discriminatory class legislation as was ever placed upon the Statute Book. What were the reasons and the motives behind the 1927 legislation? There were, I suggest, three. Each one194—they may be none the worse for this—was, in some sense, a motive of fear. There was, first, the very natural, right and proper fear of a repetition of that tragic occurrence—

Mr. W. J. Brown: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt, but my capacity for following the hon. and learned Gentleman in his important speech is being heavily impeded by the muttering of a group of political nondescripts on my left.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is entitled to complain that he is unable to hear because of the chatter of other hon. Members, but it does not entitle him to refer to them as a group of political nondescripts.

The Attorney-General: I was saying that the first motive behind the Act of

1927, and what was put forward as the primary motive then—it will be very interesting to see whether, in this Debate, it will be a matter to which primary importance is attached—was the general strike of 1926 and the fear of a repetition of that occurrence which had caused such damage to the community. People were, very properly, naturally and rightly anxious to ensure that there should be no repetition of a general stoppage of that kind in this country, and, accordingly, the Conservative Government at that time took the view, rather I suppose on the King Canute principle, that the proper way to prevent a general strike occurring in future, was to prohibit it by Statute, by an Act of Parliament.
That was the main reason. It was not the only reason. There were other reasons and motives behind the 1927 legislation which were, perhaps, less laudable; certainly they had nothing whatever to do with the general strike. I think the House will agree with me when I say that there were probably two of them of main importance. One was' the fear which may have been right or wrong—I am not attempting to discuss the merits of the matter—of the growing power, both in political and in industrial matters, of the trade unions. There were those at that time, though I do not suppose there are many now, who had not perhaps fully recognised that, with the growing economic complexity of our national life, with the increasing intervention of Parliament in economic and in industrial matters, it was inevitable that the trade unions should concern themselves more and more with political problems; and there were those who disliked the growing interest of the trade unions in political matters.
Then there were those who were afraid of the increasing power of the trade unions in industry—their amalgamations, their increasing membership, and so on. I think it is right to say that there were not many important industrialists who took that view, but there were at that time in this House not a few who believed in liberty, not the liberty in which we believe, but the liberty of the employer at a time of great unemployment to exploit as he chose the unorganised workmen whom he might choose to employ. Those people, rightly or wrongly, feared the growth of the trade unions in those respects. Then, of course, there were the others, who


viewed with some dismay the increasing power of the political Labour Party. They laboured under the odd delusion that the Labour Party was being built upon the hard-earned pennies of honest Conservatives, who were too timid to declare their true political colours and were being bullied by horrid, nasty trade unionists into supporting the political funds of the Party to which they were so much opposed.
Those were, as many hon. Members will remember far better than I do, the three main reasons and motives behind the 1927 legislation at the time it was introduced. Where are they now? Where is a single one of them? I suggest to the House that they have all disappeared into the same kind of oblivion which surrounds most of the lawyers and most of the politicians who were responsible for putting this piece of shameful legislation on the Statute Book. One has to realise, as, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) said about this matter, that the atmosphere today is very different from the atmosphere on the morrow of 1926, or the atmosphere on the morrow of 1927. it is not only that the trades unions and the trade unionists have demonstrated, if any demonstration were needed, their essential loyalty to the State. Only the other day, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford was referring to the inestimable debt which we owe to the trade unions for what they did for the country during the war.

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: What about the dock strike?

The Attorney-General: I will deal with the dock strike. It is also the case that we have realised, because of our experience of unofficial strikes during the war, that it is utterly impossible to prohibit strikes and prevent them by processes of the criminal law. Because of that very' fact, and many others, most people nowadays realise that it is in the interests, not only of industry but of the State to have strong and powerful trade unions of which all the workers in industry are members, and which are able to guide and to lead their members. I would have thought it would be difficult to find any stronger argument against the continuance of the 1927 legislation than

our experience of unofficial strikes during the war. I shall come back to this matter in connection with the actual legal implications of this Bill.
As for the other reasons for the 1927 legislation, I can pass them by in a word. There was, indeed, some reduction in the political funds of the trades unions. I will give some more information about that in a few minutes. The trade unions have increased their membership enormously, and increased198—and it is very fortunate that they have increased—their influence and their power both in industry and in political matters. So far as the growth of the Labour Party is concerned, well, here we are and here we are going to remain for a very long time to come. There is this final circumstance which hon. Members opposite may find it impossible completely to disregard, however much they seek to divorce themselves from the facts of this situation. Since 1927. this matter has been submitted to the verdict of the people. I am not going to use the word "mandate ". It was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford himself who said, shortly before the General Election, that this very matter ought to be submitted to the verdict of the people—that was at a time when he took the view that the verdict was going another way—and that the verdict of the people ought to govern the way in which it was dealt with in the new Parliament. Well, here we are, in the new Parliament, and it will be, perhaps, for hon. Members on this side of the House to see that the view which the right hon. Gentleman then expressed is implemented, and that the verdict of the people is fulfilled by the repeal of this Statute.
I come at once to the legal effect and the legal implications of this Bill. It is a repealing Bill, and it may be for the convenience of the House if in dealing with it, as I shall try to do, in as non technical a way as I can, I take each of the material Sections of the 1927 Act, and try to indicate what their effect was, and what the position of the law will be when they arc, as they will be, swept away. The main object, or what was alleged to be the main object or purpose of the Act—1 am far from committing myself to the view that it was the main purpose of the Act—as it was presented to the House in 1927 was achieved by the first Section which prohibited certain kinds of strikes.
Although at that time Lord Birkenhead, Sir Douglas Hogg, the then Attorney-General, Sir Walter Greaves-Lord and others who advised the Government, took great pride in this Section, said that it was one of the most carefully considered and carefully drafted Sections that had ever been presented to Parliament—and I am mentioning this merely to explain my difficulty in telling the House the effect of it—one of our greatest Lords Chief Justice, Lord Reading, said of it:
 The language used is more vague and indefinite than the language of any Bill I ever remember seeing.
Therefore the House will bear with me if I am not able to make the effect of this legislation very clear. The general effect was this. It made a strike illegal if it had any object other than or in addition to the furtherance of a trade dispute in the industry immediately affected by the strike, and was intended or likely to coerce the Government, either directly or by inflicting hardship on the community. It further made illegal any primary strike—I am using the word "primary" in contradistinction to a sympathetic strike—which was not in furtherance of a trade dispute but was intended to coerce the Government. That was the short effect of the Section. In practice, its effect, of course, was that it prohibited not simply a general strike—although no doubt it prohibited that— but went far further and it prohibited any sympathetic strike on a considerable scale. Nowadays one has to realise and that is why one is so anxious to avoid strikes of any kind, whether they be general strikes or limited strikes—that any strike is likely to inflict a degree of hardship on the community. The effect of the Section, therefore, was. to confine legal strikes to those which were in furtherance of a trade dispute in the industry immediately concerned
That was the legal effect, but let me say at once, and I think the whole House will really be with me on this matter, that that Section is so much dead wood upon the Statute Book, and the sooner we get rid of it, the clearer our law will be and the more easy will it be to deal by law with such strike situations as may arise. If we could not enforce the far more specific prohibitions against strikes which are contained in the war-time legislation, at a time when the unions are not merely not behind the strikers but are opposed

to them, and when the whole community is united in hostility to the strikers—that is the point referred to by the hon. and gallant Member who spoke of the dock strike, and one could call to mind a number of other instances which, unfortunately occurred during the war—if we cannot prohibit unofficial strikes of that kind by the processes of the criminal law, it is, I venture to suggest, manifest that we cannot prohibit a general strike, when, ex hypothesi, the unions would be behind the strikers, as would a very large section of the population, because after all trade unionists and their families and friends do represent a considerable section of the population. You might as well try to bring down a rocket bomb with a peashooter, as try to stop a strike by the processes of the criminal law. The way to stop strikes is not by a policeman but by a conciliation officer, not by the assize courts but by the arbitration tribunals. It is a striking commentary upon this Section that in the only case in which it has been sought to apply it to an actual strike-, the decision of the judge and jury at the assizes was upset by the Court of Criminal Appeal on a point of law, with the result that the strikers were able to go away and laugh at the law. As this Section is a piece of mere dead wood upon the Statute Book, we propose to get rid of it.
From one point of view it is quite academic to discuss what the law will be in regard to this matter when this particular Section is repealed, but the House is entitled to know our view upon it, and I will endeavour to explain it. Let me say at once, quite frankly, that it is a matter which is not free from doubt. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members say "Hear, hear," but the learned advisers of the Conservative Party in 1927 had no doubts about the matter. They had no doubt in 1926; there was no lack of confidence then. Lord Birkenhead, Sir Douglas Hogg, the then Attorney-General, and Sir Walter Greaves-Lord all pledged their professional reputations that the strike was illegal. Sir John Simon, as he then was, in the notable series of speeches which he delivered, took the same view, and one should add that that great lawyer, so much respected in our profession, Sir Frederick Pollock, also adhered to the view, without any doubt at all, that the general strike of 1926 was illegal. Confronted with those great


names, I speak about this matter with a great deal of hesitation and diffidence, and I hope that the House will not consider me guilty of impertinence if, in the face of those very eminent opinions, I suggest that there is an element of doubt about the matter. I think myself that a question of fact is involved. A revolutionary strike always was, and always will be, illegal. Nobody has any doubt about that; an industrial strike may, in certain circumstances, be illegal under the 1927 Act, but, when that Act is repealed, will be legal. The difficulty or doubt arises in regard to the intermediate field, and it is there that I think the question of fact is involved.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman mind explaining what he means by the words "revolutionary strike "?

The Attorney-General: I should have thought that the word "revolution" was sufficiently understood in the House. I am talking about a matter which I should have thought would be within the competence of any Member of this House. A revolution, as I understand it, is an attempt to overthrow the constitutional Government of a country by force. A strike which has that purpose and effect, is quite clearly, illegal; nobody doubts it.

Mr. Stewart: I hope I may be allowed to intervene further, for we are at the very crux of the matter here. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman does not suggest that we are to understand by a revolutionary strike, a bloody revolution with arms? What I have understood to be a revolutionary strike was a strike like the late general strike. If the hon. and learned Gentleman has a different interpretation, let him say so. I should have thought that a revolutionary strike was like the last general strike, namely, a challenge to the authority of the State.

The Attorney-General: It will be of interest to the House to know what the hon. Member thought about the matter, but I am not going to follow him into any discussion of the general merits of the 1926 strike. I cannot think that that would be a very useful pursuit at this time.
When we approach the circumstances of the general strike of 1926 we get, as

I think, into that intermediate field between, on the one hand, the obviously revolutionary strike, which is intended to overthrow the Government by force or by non-constitutional means, and, on the other hand, the normal industrial strike. Let me repeat that I am only putting forward my own view; I am very conscious of the fact that lawyers may take different views and my view may very easily be wrong, but I am putting it forward for what it is worth. It is when we get into that intermediate field that I think some doubt arises, because it is a question of fact in each case. If, examining the circumstances of a particular strike, you find, as a matter of fact and looking at the substance of the matter, that the real object of the strike is not to further a trade dispute—and I am using now the language which Lord Loreburn used in one of the cases—but that the trade dispute is being used as a kind of camouflage or cloak for sectarian or political ends, then, in my view, the protection created by the legislation of 1875 and 1906 goes, and the ordinary law as to breach of contract, and so on, applies to the matter.
That is not to say that the strike is illegal, far less that it is criminal, but that is the first stage. If, after that first stage, looking at the actions and intentions of any particular body of men involved—the leaders perhaps or any other men taking an active part in it—you find, again as a question of fact, that the object is to overthrow the Government, to coerce the Government, or to obtain a change in the law by unconstitutional means, then I think that an indictment lies against those men for criminal conspiracy. But these are questions of fact. These are not questions for the Attorney-General or any single one of His Majesty's judges to settle. These are questions that, according to the great and very wise and safe tradition of English law, are best submitted to the good judgment and common sense of the 12 men on the Clapham omnibus—in other words, to a common jury of the common people. They are the people who should decide ultimately whether or not particular persons indicted before them have had criminal intentions in regard to a strike or not.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Mr. Henderson Stewart rose

The Attorney-General: I am very conscious of the fact that I am taking


too much time already, and I do not want to keep the House too long. Will the hon. Member forgive me if I do not give way? I have expressed my view of the law. I have said that if the facts are as I have indicated, a criminal prosecution would lie.
Of course, I do not want to suggest for a single moment, that any Covernment in their senses would attempt to suppress a strike by means of a criminal prosecution. Mr. Baldwin's Government in 1926 did not do so. They had no doubt the strike was illegal; they did not attempt to suppress it by the processes of the criminal law. Looking back on it now, it is difficult to imagine anything that would have done more to exacerbate the situation. You cannot settle these great human movements, wrong and misguided as they may be, by putting a few people into prison. That only makes martyrs of those people. That is not to say, of course, that it is not the duty of the Government to deal with any strike situation which may arise. Of course it is. And it is a duty which the present Government will loyally discharge. In 1920, in contemplation, as a matter of fact, of the possibility that a general strike situation might arise, Parliament passed the Emergency Powers Act of that year, giving the Government all necessary powers to deal with any such situation, short of this: that the Government were not to be allowed to declare that the strike itself was illegal. Those powers were operated in 1927, and they continue to exist. If the Government of the time, faced with any emergency of this kind, found that their existing powers were not adequate to deal with the situation, then they could come back to Parliament and ask for whatever additional powers were necessary in the circumstances of that situation.
That is the genius of our flexible Constitution. We can adapt it to meet any situation as it arises. It is only when you have a rigid system, rigid laws in regard to such matters as are provided for by the 1927 legislation, and you have to operate a law, the operation of which is going to bring the law into conflict with the people against whom it is directed, and the operation of which will inevitably result in a defeat for the law, that constitutional danger arises. I be

lieve, myself—though 1 do not know whether hon. Members will agree with me about this—that it is a principle of great and vital constitutional importance that the respect for the law in this country, the maintenance and strengthening of the rule of law in this country, does in very large measure depend on excluding from the Statute Book laws which are manifestly unenforceable, in the circumstances with which they purport to deal, and which at the same time cause resentment, rightly or wrongly, on the part of a large section of the population. We commend the repeal of the first Section and the consequential Sections of the 1927 Act dealing with the right to strike. We commend the repeal of those Sections to the.House in the confident belief that they would do nothing to make a general strike or any strike more possible or more probable, and that they will certainly do nothing to' weaken the respect for the law and the maintenance of the rule of law in this country.
Now may I pass at once to the third Section of the Act—the second as I have said is consequential—to that part which deals with intimidation? Let it be said at the very outset—because, if hon. Members will forgive me for saying so, propaganda outside the House has sedulously sought to obscure the fact—that intimidation always was, and always will remain illegal. Under the law as it stood before 1927, under the law as it was laid down in 1875 and 1906, you had to have something concrete, something tangible; you had to have actual violence, or a threat of violence against a man or his family likely to cause a breach of the peace. That was the criterion, and that was the law as it was operated from 1906 to 1927. But the 1927 Act interfered with the law, which had been operated quite easily, quite clearly, quite effectively up to that time, by introducing a new definition of intimidation. It was quite an artificial definition, as I shall invite the House to say. It was this: intimidation was to "cause in the mind of a person "—1 pause for a moment there to indicate the obvious legal difficulty of applying that subjective test in the criminal courts of this country
'' to cause in the mind of a person a reasonable apprehension of injury,
including injury to his business, occupation, or other source of income. Hon. and learned Members on the other side of the


House will agree with me about this, that the text writers who study these matters— perhaps it is of more interest to the text writers than to any practical lawyer-have been able to make very little of this Section, and 1 do not profess to make much of it myself.
Let me take a few examples of how I think the thing would work in practice, though it has not been much operated. Suppose you had a strike in which some men stay out. Suppose one of the strikers going along to a friend; going along, at all events, in a perfectly friendly and peaceable way to a man who had thought it right to remain in work; and suppose he said, "Look here, Tom, if you stick out we shall be beaten, and if we are beaten. they will bring all our wages down, and you will lose money in the end, the same as the rest of us." Perhaps hon. Members may think there is nothing very terrible in that, but that is intimidation under the terms of the 1927 Act, and that conduct would be punishable on indictment. [Hon. Members: "No."] It often happens—hon. Members opposite may think it wrong; I am not discussing the merits of the matter, whether it be right or wrong—that members of a trade union, finding that they are being called upon to do a particular kind of work with a non-unionist, object. They are perfectly entitled to object. If they go on strike about the matter, it is perfectly legal for them to do so. Strikes have been occasioned by circumstances of that kind. But if before "they go on strike one of them, the secretary of the union or an official of the union, goes along to see the non-unionist, and says, in a perfectly friendly and peaceful way, "Look here, Bill, come and join us," and points out the advantages of trade unionism to the industrial worker, and says, "Come along and join us, and become a member of the union, for if you don't we shall refuse to work for old Tom Noddy, the employer," that would be intimidation. [Hon. Members: "No."] It would. Hon. Members opposite are surprised, which goes to show that they do not really know the implications of this Act. They have not bothered to acquaint themselves with the law which they are so anxious to support. That was the Chester case, decided at Chester quarter sessions.
I am not dealing with hypothetical matters. It is astonishing that it should

be legal to strike about such a matter, and not legal to seek to avoid a strike by peaceful persuasion of a man. It is perfectly legal to boycott a man who is staying in, and not striking with his pals, by refusing to speak and associate with him—leaving the pub when he comes in to have a drink and so forth. It is perfectly lawful to do that, but to go up to him beforehand, and say to him, in a perfectly friendly and peaceful way, "Look here, George, if you don't come in with your pals and join us in this strike, which is so vital to our interests; if you stand out against the lot of us the result is going to be that we are not going to have anything to do with you; we shall no longer be your friends," that may be an indictable offence at assizes under this law.
One could go on giving lots of examples of this kind, but I am not going to take up the time of the House, except to give one which is outside the industrial field, because I think that it ought to be remembered that this law laid down in 1875, and amended in 1906 and extended in 1927, does not deal only with matters connected with trade disputes. Anybody who, in order to compel someone else to do or not to do something which he is legally entitled to do, intimidates him, is guilty of an offence, whatever the thing may be. It need not have anything to do with a trade dispute at all. The intimidation Section of the Act of 1927 uses the words, "to cause a reasonable apprehension of injury." Take the case, if hon. Members opposite can imagine such a shocking case happening, of someone who wanted to influence votes in a General Election, who, speaking with all the authority of a great political leader over the wireless system of this country, said: "The Gestapo will get you if you don't watch out. There will be a political police, I assure you of it, if you vote Socialist." Such a man, if there were such a man, would be liable to be fined 40s. at the instance of some timid housemaid who had been caused a restless night. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but this really is a serious matter. I do not think hon. Members on this side of the House ought to allow politicians on the opposite side of the House to be exposed to danger in that way. Let them say what they like on the wireless system of this country; it only makes more people vote for us.
So we propose to repeal this Section of the Act. We propose to repeal also the provision of the Act which would prevent people, it may be political canvassers, attending at a man's home in order to communicate information to him, or peacefully to persuade him. Let this be quite clear. When this Section of the Act is repealed, the law will be amply strong enough to deal with any question of improper pressure or intimidation which may arise. I am going to read now the language of one, who spoke with far more authority than I can do—the Conservative Home Secretary at the time. He said on 2nd June, 1926, in the middle of the general strike—he had referred to the words of the Statute, but I will not bother the House by reading them all out. [An HON. MEMBER: "The 2nd June was not in the middle of the strike."] I am sorry, it was about that time. This was after the strike, but the mining strike, I think, was still going on. Sir William Joynson-Hicks, a lawyer, and Home Secretary, speaking, no doubt, with all the advice and authority of his Department responsible for the administration of the law in this particular, read out the words of the Section of the relevant Act. He said:
 These are the words which are the charter, so to speak, of peaceful picketing. They are limited, and much more closely limited than has been thought to be the case by a good many people, sometimes lawyers and sometimes not lawyers. Any person, even today, who attempts to prevent any person from working by using violence or by intimidation either of him or his wife or children, or who injures his property, is guilty of an offence, and so is anybody, in spite of the Act of 1906, who persistently follows a workman from place to place or follows him with two or more other persons in a disorderly manner. Those are still offences under the Act of 1875, and they are in no way excepted by the Act of 1906. I hope that hon. Members will realise the seriousness of what I am saying. The law is that you cannot compel a man to listen. If a workman does not choose to listen, you have no right to stop him. You have no right to compel a man to listen. That is continued under the Act of 1906. If he likes to listen you may impart information, or try to persuade him to strike or not to work. But if he says, ' I do not want to speak to you or to listen to you/ and you continue to do it, it is an offence under the Act of 1875."— [Official Report, 2nd January, 1926; Vol. 196, c. 819.]
Speaking some time later he said:
 If a person watches or besets the house or other place where such other person resides, or works, or carries on business-."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th August, 1926; Vol. 199, c. 19.]

it was a criminal offence and he added if a number of men persistently beset the house of a miner who desired to work, and watched his house from time to time, watching him going in and watching him coining out, that was an offence under the law as it stood. Of course, the fact is that up to 1927, the law had stood unaltered since 1906. During those 20 years there had been, unhappily, many strikes, some of them large, some of them small, many of them serious; but I think I am right in saying—I am certain that I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that no Home Secretary responsible for the peace, order and good government of this country has ever come to the House of Commons and said, "These powers are inadequate; I must have additional powers in order to deal with this intimidation which is taking place." I think that we ought to remember that this attempt to extend the law relating to intimidation was not only inept, as I have ventured to suggest, but entirely unjustifiable. I want to remind the House of what Sir John Simon said about this matter at that time. No one can suggest that Sir John Simon was taking a view especially marked by any particular favour towards the trade unionists. He said:
 Everybody here who remembers the events of a year ago must take pride in remembering that the feature of the general strike which impressed foreign observers beyond any question was the general orderliness of the whole operation.
 That is certainly the feature which particularly impressed foreign observers and it was not due solely to the police or to public-spirited members of the public who lent their aid; it was due also to the counsel and guidance of trade union leaders and it was due to the general spirit of reasonable orderliness among the men who were out themselves.
Then he said this, and I hope we shall remember it when discussing the matter at this particular time:
 We really do a very grave injury to our own national reputation if we do not always remember that that was the feature of the general strike which particularly impressed the world.at large."— [Official Report, 4th May, 1927, Vol. 205, c. 1643.]
There was not a shred, not a tittle, not a rag of evidence to support the enactment of these new rules and this new definition of intimidation.
Let me come at once to Section 4 of the Act, which deals with the political levies. This is the Section over which


hon. Members opposite have tried with indifferent success—if they will permit me to say so—to work themselves up into a political frenzy. Hon. Members know that that Section was never intended to protect the workmen against having to pay a farthing per week. That is the amount involved, and that that Section was ever intended to protect the workmen against having to pay that political contribution is really the purest political bunkum. Nobody believes it now, and nobody believed it in 1927 and it is manifestly not so. If the number of those who do not wish to subscribe to political funds is as large as hon. Members opposite invite us to believe, then clearly they are numerically strong enough to protect themselves and to come out in their true political colours without fearing any improper pressure or bullying by trade unionists of different political views. The figures of the Registrar of Friendly Societies demonstrates that there is not a rag of evidence to support the view that anyone was being compelled to contribute to political funds against his will. The truth is, of course—and I confess it quite frankly—where you have any large body' of people you come up against a certain degree of human inertia, which prevents certain numbers taking any particular action. They just cannot be bothered filling in a form, whether it is a form to contract in or contract out. They cannot be troubled doing it, they cannot be bothered and they let the thing go.
The question here is very simple, whether the trade unions, which by a majority have decided to have a political fund, should benefit if you like from that human inertia, as I have called it, to the extent of throwing the onus on the dissentient minority to declare their objection to contribute to particular political funds, or whether the onus should be put the other way, and whether the majority, who have already voted in favour of the political fund, should be required to go further, and fill in a form showing they wish to make a particular contribution. In any ordinary organisation like a club or a company—a company having power under its articles to devote money to particular purposes—the minority have to toe the line. They do not get any opportunity of contracting out at all, but in any organisation where the minority are entitled to exemption from the view of the majority,

the normal practice—I would almost say the invariable practice—is to throw the onus on the minority to claim the benefit.
What are we to do next? Are we to say that it is the law of this country, if people have not got a conscientious objection against being vaccinated, that before vaccination takes place everybody has to fill in a form to say they want to be vaccinated? I do not see any difference, in principle, between the two cases in that analogy. This Statute which we are inviting the House to repeal put the onus the other way—on the men who wanted to pay a political contribution. Let me say at once that that Section is the only Section of this Act which, in part, did achieve its purpose. We did lose the benefit of that particular element, the inertia element who could not be bothered to fill in a form, and, as a result, the contributions to the political funds went down. The position differed in the different unions, and it is very difficult to compare a position like that, because the membership of the unions has increased very greatly, on the one hand, and, on the other, during the past six years, there has been little political organisation and canvassing. [Interruption.] Hon. Members mistake me. J was referring to political canvassing on the trade union and Labour side, not on the Conservative side. Hon. Members will find, if they look at the figures—and I am not going to bother the House with more than two or three cases—that the position differs greatly in the different unions, and I tried to see why from the figures themselves. As far as one can judge, where there is a union with a membership widely dispersed, and where there is not active political organisation, canvassing and so on, subscriptions go down. Where there is a well-knit union, with the members closely associated, and the political organisation is good, the subscriptions keep up. The figures differ very greatly in different unions. Because I want to be quite fair with the House, I will give three instances and show the net result.
The Locomotive Engineers' and Firemen's Union had a membership of 48,00a in 1927—I am leaving out the odd figures for the sake of convenience—19,000 of whom contributed to the political fund. In the year 1945—I think the latest figures are for that year—it had a bigger membership at 68,000, but the political


fund did not go up in proportion to the numbers, though it did go up almost in proportion, for it increased to 23,000. Another case, and it is quite an interesting one, is that of the Shop Assistants. They had a membership of 34,955—and I am giving the odd figures here because it is a rather remarkable case—and there were no fewer than 33,950 subscribers to the political fund in 1927. Why? Surely, not because they were being coerced to give. I cannot think of any way in which a large trade union could really effectively bring pressure upon persons so widely spread out over the country as the shop assistants. Yet that was their subscribing membership, and the reason for it was this: They just would not be bothered, if they did not want to contribute, to fill in the form to contract out. There was that high figure of contribution to the political fund, and there is a drop there. The membership has gone up by 97,000 in the last year, but the contributors to the political fund have only gone up to 40,000. The reason for that is exactly the same. Here is a union which is widely dispersed, the members of which cannot be canvassed and invited to fill in a form to contract in, so that they do not bother and the subscription is not paid.
Another. rather interesting instance is that of the Agricultural Workers' Union. They had astonishing figures in 1927, when they had a membership of 29,591, of whom 29,590 contracted in, leaving only one who took the trouble to fill in the contracting out form. The membership went up to 110,000, but contributions went up only to 72,000, not in complete proportion to the increase in membership. There, again, it is obvious that that cannot be accounted for by pressure upon, or by intimidation of, members of an industry which is so widely dispersed as the agricultural industry. What was the reason, what was the excuse, for providing this system of contracting in instead of contracting out? It was said that when you had contracting out you had a list of those who were in political disagreement with the majority of the union. and that they became marked men. That is equally possible when you have contracting in. You can have a list if you want one, and you can still mark your men if you want to mark them. Therefore, there is not the slightest validity, if that is the reason, for this difference in

procedure. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman opposite is indicating that that was not the reason, but at all events that was the reason which was put forward in 1927—that you had a list, that men were marked, and that they could be intimidated. The right hon. Gentleman who now sits for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) said at that time— as one would have expected him to say, fairly and frankly—this about that argument:
 Let us see what alteration it is that the Government propose. Docs it meet the case? Does it, in fact, take away from those who may have the will to intimidate the power to do so? In my opinion, I must confess it does not. You still have the knowledge, which is the essential preliminary to intimidation—you may change people and you may mark them in instead of out; you may tick them off with a red pencil, instead of a blue pencil—that, in fact, there are two lists still there—the list of those who pay and the list of those who do not pay. Although, in some cases, there may be intimidation, and although men may have to come up for examination, yet the opportunity does still exist, and there are many ways in which the trade union leaders, if they want to intimidate, can still do it."— [Official Report, 25th May, 1927; Vol. 206, c. 2080.]
On that ground the right hon. Gentleman refused to vote for the particular Clause under discussion in the 1927 legislation. We propose to invite the House to go back to the old method, which is the logical and normal method. In future, if anybody prefers not to contribute to the political funds of his union, all he has to do is to sign a form, and once and for all he is free from the obligation to contribute. If pressure is brought to bear upon him he has the right to go to a very powerful, independent and impartial tribunal in the form of the Registrar of Friendly Societies.
Now I come to Section 5, which prohibits established civil servants from belonging to trade unions. By that Section established civil servants were not allowed to belong to trade unions of which outside persons were members, or which were themselves affiliated to outside bodies like the Trades Union Congress. There was not a shadow of justification for it, so far as the general strike was concerned. The. right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) made that perfectly clear. The civil servants made their position clear. They sympathised with the strikers, and did what they were legally entitled to do.
They contributed to funds for the miners wives and their children, but they took no active part. On this point, I want to emphasise that the right of civil servants to strike is not in point in this legislation at all. The 1927 Act did not forbid civil servants to strike, and nothing that we propose to do now will make it any more legal than it is today for civil servants to take strike action. It is true that civil servants perform, in their various degrees, services which are essential to the State, and that some of them stand, by reason of the very nature of their employment, in a particular relation to the community. I take the opportunity of making it quite clear that this Government, like any Government as an employer, would feel itself perfectly free to take any disciplinary action that any strike situation that might develop demanded. To take a completely hypothetical case—supposing a special section of the Civil Service, for instance, prison officers, disregarding the machinery of the Whitley Council, went on strike, the Government would undoubtedly take disciplinary action by exercising their right, as an employer, of instant dismissal without hope of reinstatement. But it is no good laying down prohibitions of that kind by Statute—

Mr. W. J. Brown: The point that the Attorney-General is making is that the first recourse of a public servant should be to the recognised conciliation and arbitration machinery existing in his profession, and that that ought to militate against the strike weapon ever being employed. But would the Attorney-General recognise the corollary to that, and give to the police, who are now denied it, the right to have a union and proper conciliation and arbitration machinery?

The Attorney-General: The police stand in a different position. They are a disciplined service. Their position has been considered, and the proposals we now make do not involve any alteration in that position. I am dealing now with the ordinary civil servant who has recourse to the Whitley machinery, just as police officers have recourse through their Association, to other means by which they can make representations in regard to conditions of their employment. I was saying that we cannot deal with

these matters by statutory prohibition, but if we could, the 1927 Act clearly ought to apply to non-established, as well as to established, civil servants. There are now far more non-established civil servants than established civil servants; even in normal times, they are almost as numerous as the established civil servants, and perform equally important functions. But we do not think that statutory prohibition is the right method; we do not think we can secure loyalty and allegiance from the Civil Service by the device of cutting them off from association with others with whose terms and conditions of employment their own are often closely related.
Now I come, finally, to Section 6. This was the Section which made it illegal for local or public authorities to make membership of a trade union a condition of employment. It is sometimes of advantage—many industrialists find it so— especially where you have negotiating machinery of a particular kind, to ensure that all employees are represented by a union which is on the opposite side on the conciliation machinery. Many ordinary employers take that view. We see no reason why democratically elected local authorities, or responsible and statutory public authorities, should be. discriminated against by the law in this matter. Their position is not different from the position of any other employer, except perhaps to this extent: that their responsibilities to the electors in so far as local authorities are concerned, and to the Government in so far as public authorities are concerned, makes it more likely that they can properly be entrusted with discretion in this matter which is left, apparently, without disadvantage to the ordinary private employer.
Nor do we think it right that the mere fact that a man is employed by a public authority or by a local authority should make it a criminal offence if he breaks his contract, even though such breach of contract may result in serious inconvenience to the public. The question is not one as to the character of the employer, but as to the nature of the employment. Parliament has provided that in the cases of gas, water and electricity, a breach of contract may in certain circumstances result in a criminal offence. If it is necessary to extend those provisions to other


services, that can be done, but we do not see that there is any reason to make this question depend upon whether the employer concerned is a local or a public authority. We propose to ask the House to repeal Section (6) and go back to the ordinary law as generally applicable in industry as a whole.
That is the whole matter. I am conscious of the fact that I have taken up the time of the House too long, and for a good deal longer than I had intended to do. I shall not hide from hon. Members that two views seem to be taken on the other side of the House about the 1927 Act. One hon. Member opposite permitted himself, if I may respectfully say so, in a most friendly way, the grotesque extravagance of calling the 1927 Act the charter of the working man in his home; and Mr. Strauss, whose services were lately so regrettably rejected by the electors of Norwich, has improved the shining hour in the meantime by preparing a brief for hon. Members opposite—I confess 1 have found it exceedingly useful myself— the tone of which is perhaps characterised by the statement that, if we repeal the 1927 Act, the state of the law of this country will be unworthy of any civilised country. On the other hand, "The Times," taking, one may think, a more objective view of the matter, referred to the 1927 Act as being admittedly a punitive Measure. It is not a good thing to have punitive Measures on the Statute Book. It is a good thing that political parties which seek to put them on the Statute Book should know that in the due course of time they will be taken off. So we are to take this one off, and we are to restore the law to the condition in which it was as the result of a century of orderly, deliberate, constitutional growth, as the result of the decisions of Parliament, usually after inquiries by impartial Royal Commissions, the decisions 'of Liberal Parliaments and Conservative Parliaments, Parliaments which, like this Parliament, but perhaps unlike the Parliament of 1927, are not afraid of the industrial liberties and the personal freedoms which, by this Bill, we invite the House to restore.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. Eden: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General, in his opening observations, expressed the hope that the

discussions on this Bill would not be carried on throughout by members of the learned profession of which he is such an ornament. I have done my best to respond to his suggestion, and I offer myself, a mere layman, to make some observations upon the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech and upon this Bill. I would, however, like to re-echo his appeal and express the hope that our discussion will not all of it be in the legal stratosphere, but will be upon the issues as they seem to the layman who attempts to apprise himself of this problem.
The hon. and learned Gentleman's statement that this is not a fundamental Measure which the Government are bringing forward at the present time will, I should imagine, cause the country the very greatest surprise. At this time innumerable problems are pressing upon the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council, most reluctantly, I am sure, is obliged to refuse us Debates every day on almost every subject. The Coal Bill has to. be sent to a Standing Committee. At this time of great difficulty, we are given only Thursday to discuss the food situation. Yet the hon. and learned Gentleman says that this is not a fundamental Bill; it is not really awfully important, he says, but we may as well get rid of the 1927 Act now, and get it over. If that is the position, there could not be a worse time than the present to bring a Measure of this kind before the public.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Why did the right hon. Gentleman ask for two days to discuss it?— [Interruption.]

Mr. Eden: Because I do not happen to agree with the Attorney-General, as I hope to have an opportunity of showing the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) in the course of my relatively brief remarks.

Mr. Bechervaise: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in Order to use the phrase "silly ass" on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Eden: I did not say that.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I did not hear the phrase used. It would certainly not be an acceptable expression.

Mr. Eden: I certainly did not use it, whatever my thoughts may have been. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General was not, of course, a Member of the House during the Debates on the 1927 Measure. If he had been, I think he would have realised what a remarkable statement he made when, at the outset of his speech, he said that, in actual fact, the 1927 Act had had no practical effect on the right to strike. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman reread those Debates? I have had that turgid and rather unpleasant experience during the last few days, and I agree with him that there was in those Debates an animosity—indeed. I do not know whether the right word to use might not be bitterness—which, happily, has been absent from our proceedings since that time, and which certainly I shall try to avoid introducing, however controversial my comments may be. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will re-read those Debates, he will find that the greater part of the case made against the 1927 Act at the time was precisely that it would have practical effects upon the right to strike, and when the hon. and learned Gentleman says that it had no such effect, he demolishes 40 per cent. of the criticism which was brought against the 1927 Measure at the time. I must remind the House of what was said about the 1927 Act. I remember it very well. It influenced a good deal some of us who were then on the Back Benches on the Government side.
There were statements made by all sorts of woeful prophets as to the effect which this Measure would have on the right to strike and also on future industrial relations in this country. I think it must be admitted in all parts of the House that, whatever else may be said about the 1927 Act, none of those woeful prophecies has been fulfilled. I will give one or two quotations. Sir Henry Slesser one of the chief speakers for the Opposition, said of the Measure:
 It is, as I said at the beginning of my speech, imposing on this country a system of industrial servitude.
Does anybody believe that, in fact, that has proved a true description of the 1927 Act, however much one may happen to dislike it? Sir Henry Slesser went on to say:
I do honestly believe that in this Bill tonight we are taking a step, the result of

which may be catastrophic."— [Official Report, 2nd May, 1927; Vol. 205, c. 1389.]
Have they been catastrophic? ' Hon. and right hon. Members on the benches opposite look quite well and reasonably healthy, and, so far as I am able to judge, their organisations are in no particular state of catastrophe at the moment. Mr. Clynes, who was very much respected by all sides of this House, said that the Bill was
 motived by the idea of reducing the trade unions to impotence in their relation to employers of labour."— [Official Report, 2nd May, 1927; Vol. 205, c. 1339-]
I have no doubt that Mr. Clynes believed that at the time, but is anybody suggesting that that is what happened in fact after 1927? [An Hon. Member: "Yes."] Does the hon. Member really say that since 1927 the trade unions have been reduced to impotence? Surely, it must be admitted by all that that is a gross exaggeration. I will give one- further quotation and it is from the speech of Lord Snowden on "the Third Reading of that BUI. He said:
 The effect of the Bill will be to hand over the trade unions to the employers and to take away their bargaining power.
Everybody knows, in fact, that that has not happened. I only repeat these charges in order to show that the fears that were then uttered were absolutely unfounded. The trade unions have as high a membership at the present time, and their bargaining power—has it been diminished? If so, when was it diminished, how was it diminished and in what dispute was it diminished by the Act of 1927?
The hon. and learned Gentleman quite rightly quoted the tributes that were paid by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) to the work of the trade unions during the war. I would associate myself and my hon. Friends with those tributes. If hon. Members will try to read impartially, so far as one can be impartial on the subject, the discussions in 1927 and look at those woeful prophecies, I believe it will be clear to them that, had those prophecies been fulfilled, the trade unions would never have been able to fill the part which they played in the war, and to which we are all perfectly willing to pay tribute.
What about the great bitterness, and the industrial disputes which were going to take place after the 1927 Act? That


was the other main burden of criticism which runs all through the speeches of the critics of the Bill at that time. Between the great war and the general strike of 1926, the number of working days lost in industrial disputes fell below 8,000,000 in only one year—rather a tragic fact. [An Hon. Member: "Why? "] I am not going into the why of it. I am only dealing with the facts. It may have been the fault of the employers or of the Government. That is not relevant to my argument. Those are the figures. Since the general strike, only in one year, 1929, and by a very narrow margin, has that figure been reached. Between 1933 and the outbreak of the war the number of working days lost in a year exceeded 2,000,000 in only one year. Those are the comparative figures, 8,000,000 and 2,000,000. I give them only to show that the other main line of attack on the Bill was absolutely unjustified and was disproved by the events which followed after.
If the fears which were uttered in 1927 in respect of the ability of the trade unions to use the strike weapon after the Bill was passed, or in respect of industrial relations, had been fulfilled, I could have understood the Government coming down to the House with a Measure to amend Section 1 of that Act. In fact, and this cannot be challenged, the fears that were then expressed have been disproved. Nor can I understand—I say it respectfully because I am treading on the fringes of the law and I must be careful—the attitude of the hon. and learned Gentleman or of the Government to the declaration that the general strike is illegal. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that, as I understand the position at the time of the dispute of 1926, the law in respect of the general strike was in dispute. There was more than one point of view. There was the view expressed by Lord Simon and others, the view expressed by Sir Henry Slesser and others, and the views of 'the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is now. the President of the Board of Trade.
I am asking the Government, Is it really desirable to go back to that uncertain, or, if you like, disputed, state of affairs? What will be the material advantage to the country of doing so? I should have thought that all public advantage lay in a firm statement of the law to the effect that the general strike is illegal.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The effect of the 1927 Act is to make all strikes illegal.

Mr. Eden: The hon. Member says that that makes all strikes illegal. I am coming to that point. That was not the view of the Labour Government in 1931. I ask, first of all, whether we agree that it is to the advantage of all that the general strike should be illegal. Who wants one? I know that many responsible leaders of the trade union movement do not. I have seen the statement of Sir Walter Citrine saying what a heavy additional responsibility the trade unions will have if this Act is repealed. Many of us know Sir Walter Citrine very well, and we do not regard him as being very far to the Left. I can think of some of my hon. Friends whom I regard as well to the Left as Sir Walter Citrine. I ask the Government what public advantage will be served by this course of action? What are we to get? Sir Walter Citrine says that he will get very heavy responsibilities.
Right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench "are no doubt very in fluential and important, but they are not eternal. What are any of us but ships that pass in the night? Who will follow after them? The Foreign Secretary him self had cause to refer at a recent inter national conference to the activities of Communist propaganda

Mr. Gallacher: Ha, ha.

Mr. Eden: I must have touched a sensitive spot—directed against the British Government in all parts of the world. Everybody knows that such propaganda is active in the trade union movement today. There is no dispute about that. If there is, I have another quotation here somewhere from the Foreign Secretary. At the moment, their point of view is represented here only by two hon. Members opposite, who are, if you like, a cloud no bigger than a man's hand; but who can say what the future holds? I am going to tell hon. Members some of the impressions that we get who sit in Opposition and have the privilege of gazing upon the phalanxes opposite, and what passes through our minds. We believe that there are at least a score, and perhaps 30, hon. Members opposite whose point of view is much more sympathetic to that of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) than it is to the point of view of their own Front Bench.

Mr. Gallacher: Would the right hon. Gentleman allow me to make it clear that when I or any of my colleagues get to the Government Front Bench the people who are represented by the other side, the capitalists and the landowners, will have disappeared, and that there will be no need for a general strike?

Mr. Eden: We all admire the hon. Gentleman greatly, but will he mind our saying that there is still a majority in this House who, while respecting his form of paradise, would rather not share it just yet? I do not think there is any dispute in any part of the House that the powers granted are immense and they will be greater, if not in law, in impression, as the result of the repeal than they were before. To many they seem to create a state within a state. We shall of course vote against them, but it seems strange to me that the hon. Gentlemen opposite should be urging us to vote for them at a time like this. I cannot help thinking that the day will come when they will regret the advice they are giving to this House now.
I should like to refer to one matter which the Attorney-General, for some very surprising reason, never dealt with at all. Perhaps it was a convenient lapse of memory because I am sure after that remarkable speech he could not forget anything on purpose. He never said a word about the Bill introduced by the Labour Government in 1931 to amend this much-abused 1927 Act. This is rather an important Measure to us. The President of the Board of Trade, who was at that time Solicitor-General, was then responsible for advising this House as to the law. He made it clear then—and I must ask the House to follow this rather intricate argument, but I think it is important that, in his opinion, the general strike would have been illegal under the terms of the Socialist amending Bill of 1931, as it undoubtedly would have been illegal under the Act of 1927. May I just quote what the right hon. Gentleman said:
'' Prior to the year 1926 the material Sections of the Acts, apart from the common law, were Section 3 of the Act of 1875 and Sections 1 and 5 of the Act of 1906. The criterion of illegality applied by those Sections was whether the act done was an act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. The question is, therefore, Was the calling of the General Strike of 1926 an act done in furtherance of the miners' lock-out. In my opinion it was, because undoubtedly

one of the objects was to assist the miners, and the fact that there were other objects was not at that date material in my view.… May I now proceed to the position under the Act of 1927? There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the General Strike would have been illegal under the Act of 1927. Under the pro posed Bill— 
that is the Bill of the Labour Government of that day, 1931—
 the strike of 1926 would, in my opinion, have been illegal and for this reason, that though it may be said that it was in some degree in furtherance of a trade dispute, yet, looking at the substance of the matter as the Act would demand, I have no doubt that a Court of Law would have held, had the present Bill then been law—
that is the Bill of 1931—
 that the primary object of the strike was not industrial and that therefore the strike would have been illegal. I give this opinion as the best opinion which I can form upon the law."[Official Report, 28th January, 1931, Vol. 247, c. 1032.]
The House will surely observe that what is remarkable about that statement is, first, that it confesses that the primary object of that strike was not industrial, or at any rate so it would be interpreted by anyone giving expression to the Bill of 1931, and, secondly, it also made it clear that under the Bill of 1931, introduced by the then Labour Government, such a strike would have been illegal. I ask the Government why they have not taken up again the Measure which they themselves introduced in 1931? [An Hon. Member: "You refused it then."] Certainly, and I would be prepared to debate it now.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): It is fifteen years too late.

Mr. Eden: The right hon. and learned Gentleman really cannot get away with it like that. The right hon. Gentleman says, "fifteen years too late." He came down to the House at that time and I remember his speech. I have the greatest respect for his integrity and sincerity and cannot believe that he presented a Bill in which he did not really believe. He told us then—and he was quite sincere—that he was presenting a Bill that made a recurrence of the general strike illegal.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Are we to believe that the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members on the other side of the House now prefer to accept a Bill with provisions similar to the 1931 Bill?

Mr. Eden: Though we have many qualities, it is not we who are proposing the Government's legislation, and I am asking the Government respectfully, but I think with reason, why they are not reintroducing the Bill of 1931. I thought I heard an hon. Member say, "It is different now; we were not in power then." Is the position then, that when you are in office but not in power you say a general strike is illegal, but when in power and in office you say you do not know whether a general strike is legal or not? I think we are entitled to some little clarification, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, or somebody from the Government Front Bench, will be good enough to tell us what is the national advantage in the Government changing their point of view between 1931 and today.
I come now to one or two other aspects to which I must briefly refer in connection with this Bill. First there is the amendment to the 1927 Act which has reference to the question of intimidation. I want to say a word to the hon. and learned Gentleman about that. He made very great play, and very skilful play, with the intimidation position under the Act of 1927. As I say, I have no legal training and 1 do not know whether it is good law to say that extravagant cases are typical, but I should have thought not. The hon. and learned Gentleman did speak with great skill and I do not wish to detract from that. I am going to ask whoever replies from the Government side why, if the intimidation provisions were, in all respects, so bad in the Act of 1927, they embodied a part of them in their own Bill in 1931? There must be some cause why it was good then to put them in, and now to leave them out. Perhaps there is another reason for all this. I can just visualise discussion in the Cabinet when the Government were saying, "What shall we do? Shall we amend the 1927 Act or shall we just repeal it?" and I can imagine the Lord Chancellor who, after all, spoke even longer than the Attorney-General did today when he introduced this Measure in 1931, feeling slightly embarrassed and saying, "I did, after all, recommend the 1931 Bill very warmly to the House. Let us get fairly near it. Since I said all these things in 1931 I am committed, and it is rather difficult to unsay them all a few years later." I can imagine the Prime Minister, with his natural fairmindedness

coming down perhaps on the same side, and the right hon. Gentleman the then Leader of the House saying, "We have so little time, we are so hard pressed; let us make it sharp and swift."

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): A nice short Bill.

Mr. Eden: "Vengeance is mine," said the Lord President. There it is, and there is about the same reasoning for the method in which the matter has been presented.
I am afraid I have omitted one subject which I cannot leave out, because the hon. and learned Gentleman dealt with it and I must answer some of his remarks upon it. It is the question of the political levy. I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman put that more fairly than I have yet heard it put from the benches opposite. The effect of his argument was that there is always a certain unwillingness on the part of members of a political party to line up, a feeling of '" We do not want to be bothered about it." I do not know that I entirely disagree with that description. It is not so very wide of its mark. But I must remind the House again of the arguments which were uttered when the 1927 Act was being passed. We were given two mutually contradictory arguments. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) objected at the time that this Section was an endeavour to cripple the Labour Party. All I can say is that they look pretty healthy cripples. The other argument was that it did not matter at all, but was rather a nuisance, because the trade unions would have a lot more work to do in preparing forms. We are being told today that we must do something against the inertia of people who will not sign forms. May I ask the Minister who is to reply just one question? Does the Minister of Labour suggest that any member of a trade union who wants to subscribe to the Labour Party funds, is in any way prevented from subscribing by the existing law? It is no great thing to ask that supporters of any political party, should fill in a form just once. If anybody happens to be a Liberal, or even a member of this party, he probably has to fill in more than one form. Why should hon. Members opposite be placed in a more privileged position than supporters of those parties? If anybody wishes to subscribe


to a party on this side of the House, they have to sign their names. I can see no great hardship in asking those who wish to subscribe to the Labour Party funds to sign their names like everyone else.
I turn to the question of the Civil Service. This is a matter which I beg the House to treat with the utmost seriousness. If there was one thing about which we did agree in the 1927 Debate it was the importance of keeping party politics out of the Civil Service. I was worried by something which the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) said the other day in a question. He was very lightly dealt with by the Under-Secretary, who was very tactful and diplomatic. The hon. Member asked that before the reforms in the Foreign Service—which were before the House when I was Foreign Secretary—were accepted would the right hon. Gentleman the present Foreign Secretary consider supplementing the existing service with persons whose political views are in sympathy with the present Government? The public has great confidence in the integrity of civil servants, and that confidence will be destroyed by the introduction of political parties into this question. I would say to the hon. Member below the Gangway that if a civil servant, representing his union, is allowed to speak on any and every political question on the agenda, say of a Labour Party conference, and is allowed to play, if elected, a full part in the executive of that party, then you cannot restrict the rights of other civil servants, who may also represent the views of some of their colleagues, to take part in the conferences and councils of a Conservative, Liberal or even Communist Party. Once the Civil Service is brought into politics in this way, it will be impossible to keep politics out of the Civil Service. If anyone can produce an argument to show how that is to be done, it has not yet been presented.
With regard to Section 6, I do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman's presentation of the case. As I understand it, the question at issue is whether local and public authorities ought to be allowed, by law. to compel their own employees and those of their contractors, not only to join a union on pain of dismissal, but also to join a particular union chosen not by the employees but by the local authorities. Whatever advantages there

may be in employees belonging to some union, I can find no reasons for compelling them to join a particular union. I have never heard it suggested that the Government, for instance, should do anything of that kind in respect of its own servants, and I do not think that the Government would regard it as either desirable or necessary. I cannot see, therefore, why a local authority, which is, in a' sense, a microcosm of the Government, should be given that power, and it seems to me to be a power to which we should object. This Section applies to other public authorities as well as to local authorities, and before this Debate closes, I think we must have a clear statement from the Government as to their intentions in regard to the nationalised industries. Of course, we understand that that creates a new position in respect of the powers of the Government regarding certain branches of the Civil Service. It is a position in respect of which we ought to have a statement by the Government, which could act by regulation in this matter. We ought to know in detail what their proposals are.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, it is true that trade unions occupy a privileged position today. We on this side can claim that in the past we have played a part in building up those privileges. It was we who gave the unions the right to strike, and made collective bargaining a reality. I have already referred—not in hostile fashion—to trade unions. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford paid a tribute to trade unions, it was one which I, personally, wholeheartedly shared, but I assure the House that if you give special privileges to certain sections of the community, and lay down those privileges by law, so you should also lay down the limitation of those privileges. If the hon. and learned Gentleman, speaking for the Government, thought that, in some respects, the 1927 Act was unfair upon unions in its working, he could have brought an amending Bill before this House, and we could have discussed and examined it. The Government have done nothing of the kind. This is another piece of legislation with its faults which we are all learning to expect from hon. Gentlemen opposite. I cannot see that this Bill in any way assists—if anything it is calculated to hinder—the fulfilment of the great tasks before the country today.
It will not grow more food, it will not build more houses, it will not export more goods, it will not get any more coal, and it will not increase the wellbeing of the people of this country. It is just purely Party politics for the narrowest Party ends. It is unworthy of the hour and unworthy of the men who sponsor it.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. O'Brien: This is my maiden speech and I am sure I shall receive the courtesy of the House which it is in a position to give to a Member on this occasion. I am tempted to forego the notes on which I have spent my morning, and to reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), but I shall have to keep to the points to which I made up my mind to refer this evening.
I think Disraeli once said in reference to Christianity, that it suffered more from its stupid friends than from its lively enemies. One could apply this in an inverted form to trade unionism and say with historical justification that trade unionism has gained more from its stupid enemies than from its liveliest friends. In the records of the trade union movement one can find repeatedly evidence that hostile and ill-advised checks to the growth of trade unionism have reacted to its advantage and to the confusion of its opponents. The legislation we are dealing with today is one of the best illustrations one can give of this fact. As a trade unionist I would like to tender my warm thanks to the Government for introducing this Bill; it is a belated act of reparation. It is calculated to undo a very serious injustice inflicted upon the trade union movement in a spirit of reprisal about 20 years ago. The House should be reminded that this Bill would not have been brought forward now—this is very important and it is a reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington—if the parties represented on the benches opposite, and their leaders in the late Government, had allowed their commonsense to override their prejudices and suspicions concerning the trade unions. Ever since the 1927 Act was passed the trade union and labour movement has demanded its removal. There is one thing in which the trade union movement of this country has been consistent and that has been the perti-

nacity of its demand for the repeal of this particular Measure. Only those who work inside the trade union and labour movement can fully. measure the depth of the. resentment this Act has caused, or understand the strength of the determination of trade unionists to have it abrogated.
I would remind the House that during the war years, when the trade union objections to this Act found most resolute expression on the part of the Civil Service unions, who were particularly and unjustifiably penalised by its provisions, the Trades Union Congress refused to make the demand for the repeal a dividing issue. With the country fighting for its very life at the time, the T.U.C. General Council, instead of taking advantage of the national emergency and pressing for the repeal of this particular Measure and making it an issue for the home front, sought to find a solution of the difficulty by way of agreements with the other parties opposite. As the House will recall, the T.U.C. General Council through its Secretary, Sir Walter Citrine, approached the Prime Minister of the Coalition Government with proposals for an all-Party agreement to amend the 1927 Act on two of its Sections only—not a general repeal such as we are dealing with today, but the repeal of two particular Sections, 5 and 6, which are those applying to the Civil Service unions and to matters in regard to local authorities.
Let me remind the House of the sequence of events. The T.U.C. in 1939 sent a deputation to the Prime Minister of the day, the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain. His reply was to the effect that the amended legislation would be so controversial that it would be impracticable to take up the matter in wartime. He expressed the hope that the trade union movement would not press for reconsideration of any of the provisions of the Act, but would concentrate upon the supreme task of winning the war. He declared that he was well aware of the support which the trade unions were giving to the national war effort, and expressed the view, in so many words, that the records of the unions in this respect would proportionately strengthen their claims with. regard to the repeal of the 1927 Act when the war was over. Those were important sentiments, uttered by Mr. Chamberlain himself. This was


equivalent to putting the unions on a probationary period while the war was on.' They resented it, and all the more because they had been urging the abolition of this crippling and disabling Measure ever since the Act itself was passed. The T.U.C. declared in no uncertain terms that the retention of this Act upon the Statute Book, at a time when the country was staking its whole resources on a war for freedom and democracy, was itself a mockery and a denial of the ideals for which the nation was fighting. With some knowledge of the inner councils of the trade union movement on this question, we hoped for better things when the Coalition Government was formed.
Now I come to a crucial point. The T.U.C. had to bring the matter up again when the Civil Service unions, particularly the Union of Post Office Workers, raised it in a somewhat challenging form, and they proposed to the Congress that Congress should admit them to reaffiliation. But the T.U.C. took up the matter in a restrained and conciliatory spirit. They asked the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), and his Cabinet colleagues to consider again the possibility of agreed Amendments to the 1927 Act and on these two points only—the position of civil servants in relation to their fellow trade unionists outside, and the right of local authorities to make trade unionism a condition of employment in their service if they wished to do so. The unions as a whole were content for the time being with these two reasonable and limited Amendments.
What was the answer? They were told by the Prime Minister of the time that they should first of all find out whether they could persuade the Conservative Party to agree to these two Amendments—I am speaking factually. So they entered into discussions with the Leader of the Conservative Party. While these discussions were going on, the leaders of the Liberal Party insisted that they should be consulted too. To both parties the T.U.C. suggested that they should agree to amend Sections 5 and 6 of the 1927 Act in the sense that I have indicated. They could not get the leaders of these Parties to agree, and the former Prime Minister, wielding as he did overwhelming and political Party influence at

that time, declined to go beyond the limitation his Party had imposed upon him in this particular matter.
The letter from the Prime Minister of the Coalition Government sent to the T.U.C. is on record. He said that the overwhelming mass of Conservatives would not support the T.U.C. proposals. Let me emphasise again that no more was proposed than that the Act should be amended to permit civil servants' unions to reaffiliate to Congress and to allow local authorities, if they so wished, to make membership of a union a condition of employment in their service. No other issue was raised. I do not believe that even today hon. Members opposite appreciate the spirit of reasonableness and restraint which the unions observed in dealing with this matter at that time. Let us not forget that the civil servants' unions, resentful as they were at the slur that the Act cast upon them, did not claim restoration of their full liberties as citizens and trade unionists; they said they would be content with such Amendments as would enable them to rejoin and associate with their fellow workers in the Trades Union Congress and explicitly disclaimed any wish to raise any question of their relations with the Labour Party, or their right to build up political funds as other unions have a right to do.
The right hon. Member for Woodford, as Prime Minister, said there was no possibility of securing their consent even to this Limited Amendment and I trust the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington had regard to that fact to which I noticed he did not refer in his speech. The former Prime Minister also added that the question was one which should be submitted to the electorate. I quote textually the paragraph, of his letter to the T.U.C. in March, 1945. This is what he said:.
 I fear there is no possibility of amending the Trade Disputes Act, as desired, by agreement in the present Government and House of Commons. I have ascertained that the overwhelming mass of Conservatives would not support such an Amendment. In view, therefore, of the approaching General Election, it would seem to me this question is one which should be submitted to the electorate, and that their verdict will govern its treatment in the new Parliament.
This is the position we have reached. The electorate has given its


verdict as between the Conservative Party and the party led by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. There is one distinguishing feature, that the Baldwin Government of 1927 had no mandate whatever from the electorate to pass the 1927 Act, but this Government has a definite mandate from the electors to repeal the 1927 Act. This Bill gives effect to the long sustained determination of trade unionists to get a redress from Parliament for the injuries which an earlier Parliament, in what we know to have been a most vindictive and punitive temper, inflicted upon the unions. Trade unionists like myself believe that political antagonisms, intensified by the rise of the Labour Party since the present century began, have dictated more than one of the attacks made upon the trade unions. We remember the Taff Vale Judgment, and the Osborne Judgment of 1908-9, when a blow was struck at the growing political influence of the trade unions to engage in political activities of any kind. It struck at the relations between the unions and the Labour Party.
That Act of 1913 did restore to the trade unions some political rights, the rights that other bodies of citizens enjoyed without interference, the right to contribute financially to the support of the party of their choice, the right to spend their own money on lawful political objects. But the 1913 Act limited the political action of the trade unions. It required them to take a ballot of their members before they could add political objects to their statutory objects and before they could collect any contributions at all from their members for the political objects. It required them to keep their political fund separate from all their other funds and did not allow the use of any of the union's general funds for political purposes. The 1913 Act required the unions to allow any of their members to contract out in respect of their political contributions.
Hon. Members opposite feel that these were reasonable restrictions. We take a different view. They see, and have seen for generations past, that the work of trade unions necessitates an active interest in political affairs. Out of the necessities which brought the T.U.C. into contact with the House and with Government Departments, and which exposed its officers to the possibility of such treatment, came the decision of the trade

unions to have a party of their own. At the beginning of the present century the Socialist and working-class societies helped to quicken the social conscience of the country and in due course the Labour Party was formed.
Trade unionists believed that they had as much right, and more reasons, to engage an and spend their money on political activities, as any other voluntary association. The Government of the day took the view that the trade unions must not be allowed this measure of political freedom. But if trade unions are affected by legislation, if wage earners are affected by legislation passed here,' they have the same right as other citizens to organise themselves for political purposes. The 1913 Act encouraged members of trade unions to stipulate that none of their union funds should be used for political purposes. That was a loophole which the parties opposite used at the time to promote disunity and dissension inside the trade unions, by spreading among trade unionists political prejudices and encouraging them to withhold their support from the party their fellow trade unionists had founded. It was not only the question of subscriptions to pay affiliation fees to the Labour Party that was involved in the 1913 Act. The whole of the political work of the unions—their approaches to Government Departments on matters affecting their industries, and their interest in local government affairs— was disabled to some extent by the encouragement given to some trade unionists to cease paying union dues in support of the political work of their organisation.
I know that it was said in defence of the 1913 stipulations about the political levy, that a member of a union who makes known his political attitude by applying for the form to contract out, exposes himself to intimidation. There is a short and simple answer to this allegation. It was officially stated that in 12 years following the 1913 enactment, only 66 complaints were made by trade unionists about the way they had been treated in claiming exemption from the political contribution. Half of these cases were found, on investigation by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, to be without foundation. The remainder of the cases concerned minor violations of the Act's procedure. There was no victimisation of.trade unionists involved in contracting


out. There is abundant evidence that the overwhelming mass of the members of trade unions at that time wholeheartedly agreed to make political contributions. But why should trade unionists be required by law to go through any such procedure as the 1913 Act laid down? No other Act of Parliament requires a body of people to take such action before exercising their right to contribute to a common fund for political objects if they wish to do so. No Act of Parliament ought to impose upon a particular body of citizens—the trade unionists of this country—an obligation which no other body of citizens has to observe. The grievance trade unionists felt under the 1913 Act was enormously intensified by the 1927 Act.
I do not want to go into the details of that Act, but I should like to point out that the 1927 Act struck at manifestations of trade union solidarity in almost every one of its Sections. It struck in the very first Section at the right to strike. It said, in effect, that only those workpeople who were directly concerned in a trade dispute could legally stop work, and only in the industry where the dispute occurred. Other industries, other unions, other bodies of workers, might have a vital concern, though an indirect one, in the issues raised by a particular trade dispute. But the 1927 Act forbade them to take any action in support of and in sympathy with their fellow trade unionists directly involved. That Section was aimed at the massive solidarity of the trades unions, which is one of their strongest features, and, I do not hesitate to say, one of their finest attributes. The country learned to depend on this solidarity during five years of desperate war. It was the rock upon which the Government of this country built the organisation that produced the munitions of war, and nourished our Fighting Forces in all the lands, in the air and on all the seas.
Hon. Members opposite profess great fear of a general strike. I do not believe that this country—I speak as a trade union officer of 25 years' standing—will ever see one, and certainly not for political purposes. The only possibility arises from the stupidity and vindictiveness of some hon. Members and their reactionary friends among the employers. In this connection one piece of danger will shortly

be eliminated by the disappearance of the mineowners, that hard-faced set of individuals who bred great ill-will and fostered bitterness in the coalfields, not only for decades tout for generations. The right to strike in pursuance of a trade dispute is the mark which distinguishes slaves from free men.
Again, workers in the Civil Service were deprived of any right of association with unions outside the Service. If any body of citizens has a right to complain of an insult and an injury inflicted upon them by Parliament, it is the workers in the Civil Service. They were told by the Act of 1927 that they must not belong to any union outside their own field of employment, if it had political connections of any description whatever. They were told that the only kind of association that would be tolerated for them inside the Civil Service was one which had no political connections and no political funds, no political programme and no voice in Parliament. This outrageous abridgment of the political and industrial freedom of a loyal, public-spirited, self-sacrificing body of citizens, has been resented by them, and equally strongly resented by their fellow trade unionists. The Measure now before the House will put an end to the treatment of civil servants as if they were themselves lepers or in danger of contracting an incurable disease from contact with lepers outside. By what process of reasoning, by what standard of justice, do hon. Members opposite deny to the postmen who deliver their letters, the rights of free association they claim for themselves?
Further, the Act struck at trade unions in public services. It denied to local authorities the right to say that their employees should belong to trade unions. This was a most illogical provision. There is a Fair Wages Clause, which was agreed to by this House, which is observed by Government Departments and local authorities. That Fair Wages Clause has long been recognised as the standard of relationship between contractors and their employees and public authorities. Surely, it is only consistent that, in a revision of the Fair Wages Clause, which has been in operation for half a century, with revision and extension at different stages, and which was approved by Parliament in 1942, to come into operation at the end of the war, the


local authority should have the right to require its employees to belong to the trade unions which have brought about the betterment and improvement of the working conditions they enjoy. Moreover, war legislation, emergency orders of every description affecting the conduct of industry, lay down the same stipulations about the observance of trade union standards of wages, working hours and conditions of employment.
The working of the National Arbitration Tribunal is conditioned by the same principle. Quite a large proportion of the cases dealt with by that Tribunal have been concerned with enforcement on particular employers of the principle of trade union standards. Is it not in the last degree illogical and inconsistent for Parliament, which has thus reinforced in countless ways the practice of collective bargaining, and safeguarded the achievements of collective bargaining in improved conditions of labour, to say to local authorities that they must not insist upon their employees joining the unions which secure those improvements? This provision of the 1927 Act is not merely an encouragement to blacklegging; it is a direct incitement to blacklegging. It flies in the face of the purpose Parliament has had in enacting legislation which recognises the practice of collective bargaining and enforces the results achieved by collective bargaining in the form of trade union agreements establishing recognised standards.
The Government are giving the House an opportunity to be logical and consistent, as well as just and fair, in dealing with the trade unions. This 1927 Act, which the Bill we are discussing today will sweep from the Statute Book, is a tissue of ill-considered, ill-natured and ill-intentioned provisions, which in my humble opinion the Parties opposite should be ashamed to defend or seek to justify. Arrogance and stupidity make a disagreeable political mixture. They are the congenital diseases of a number of the opponents of the trade unions and the Labour Party. Let hon. Members opposite, indeed the whole House, make amends to the great body of organised wage-earners who have been insulted, injured, humiliated, by this earlier legislation. Let the parties opposite help to put this overdue Measure of reparation on to the Statute Book. I trust that in this, my maiden speech, anything I have said, any

divergence I may have made from the strict rules of the House, may be forgiven I have said it from the depths of my heart and out of the profundity of my convictions.

5.58 p.m.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: It is my privilege and pleasure to be the first hon. Member in this House to congratulate the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. O'Brien) on his maiden speech. I am sure that we are all full of admiration for the eloquence he showed, and impressed by the obvious sincerity of his views, and we were interested in all he said as one who is a trade unionist himself. I can well remember the occasion when I was walking to this House to make my maiden speech. On the way I met a Member of the then Government, and I told him of my nervousness, and how I wished that I had his experience in speaking. He said that he did not want to discourage me— I was the youngest Member in the House at that time—but that he himself, in spite of 30 years in the House of Commons, felt physically ill before he made a speech and had a good drink when it was all over. It is not for me to encourage the hon. Member to excesses of that nature, but I am sure that every one in the House will agree with me that he has earned some slight celebration tonight if he is so minded. I am sure that they also agree with me that we look forward to hearing him many times in the future.
Now, I am afraid, I have to part with the hon. Member because I myself rise to oppose this miserable little Bill, the size and appearance of which, to my mind, are all too true indications of its value and usefulness to the country at this particular moment. I listened with great interest to the arguments put forward in support of this Measure by the learned Attorney-General. It is obviously not for me to cross swords with him on the legal points of his argument. But I would like to deal first with one or two of the non-legal arguments which have been produced, in the Press and elsewhere, in favour of the repeal of this Act, before I go on to the actual Sections of the 1927 Act which it seeks to repeal. I notice today that the mandate still seems to be the theme song of His Majesty's Government. It is true it came out rather coyly today from the learned Attorney-General, and it is quite obvious there is


no limit to the use of this argument either by this Government or any other Government who have been successful in an Election. I do humbly suggest however that it does reduce the proceedings of this House to a farce if, on all and every occasion, the electoral mandate is to be used as an excuse for neither listening to nor attempting to answer any criticisms, of arguments, which may be put forward against any particular Measure.
Several important questions have been put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) which deserve an answer I myself think that the House is entitled to an answer to these big constitutional questions which he put, and I think the country has the right to demand an answer other than possibly a parrotlike cry about the electoral mandate. May I now deal with the argument that the right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen are pledged to the repeal of the 1927 Act? I find no difficulty in believing that they are pledged to repeal this Act, because there is no doubt that their pledges and promises covered a very wide field of our national life during the course of the Election. They are, no doubt, pledged to do many other things besides, which there seems little likelihood of them carrying out. I very much doubt whether one per cent. of the electors in this country have the least idea of what all the Sections of the 1927 Act do or do not do. In fact, I really do not see how they could know. I have tried to take an interest in this Act. A month ago I asked our own Vote Office for a copy of the 1927 Act and I might have been asking for a spare copy of Magna Charta for all the hope that they held out of obtaining a copy. It was not until the end of last week that I managed to obtain a copy at all. I do not think it is unreasonable then to assume that the electorate, who gave this great mandate, are on the whole completely ignorant of its provisions. I myself do not think they are even particularly interested in the 1927 Act.
During the course of the last Election I think I addressed close on 200 meetings, and I can honestly say that I was only asked three questions about the Trade Disputes Act of 1927. Each one of those questions referred to Section 5 of that Act which deals with the civil servants. Certainly during the 12 years I have been in

this House, I have not received one letter or one complaint, about the unfair provisions contained in this Act. I cannot believe that, in the eyes of the majority of the people in this country, this 1927 Act is the unfair harsh and penal Measure which some hon. Gentlemen opposite would have us believe. Judging by my own postbag, certainly the demand for the repeal of this Act is negligible compared with the demand for dried eggs, houses, and almost any other commodity, in this country today. If the Government were looking for some useful job to fill in their time and the time of the House, they could far more profitably be employed at this particular moment in dealing with some of the commodities which are in such very short supply.
Another argument which is advanced against the 1927 Act is that it was a punitive Measure. I am not for one moment saying that the Act did not come into being as a result of the general strike. The general strike did reveal a certain obscurity in the law as to when or when not a strike was legal. It showed up certain undesirable practices in the matter of intimidation. It showed up a possible weakness in our British Constitution with a Civil Service which might, possibly, have conflicting loyalties in a moment of crisis. I do not think anyone can claim that an Act like the 1927 Act which sought to clarify the law as to when or when not a strike was legal, to abolish certain undesirable practices in the matter of intimidation, and also to strengthen the Constitution by demanding the undivided loyalty of the Civil Service, can accurately be described as a punitive Measure.
I now come to the 1927 Act itself, and those Sections which it is now the object of the Government to repeal. Those who have studied the Act know that Section 1 tries to define what constitutes an illegal strike. There is no question but that the position was obscure at the time of the general strike and prior to the passage of the 1927 Act. As I understand it, that Act did make it quite clear that any strike the object of which was to coerce the elected Government of the day to some particular line of action, and was not a furtherance of a trade dispute, was illegal. I would say to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that if they consider that the law as amended, or as


a result of the 1927 Act, is punitive and unfair over this question of when or when not a strike is legal, they should openly come forward and amend this Section, and make it quite clear where we stand now and in the future as to whether a general strike, a coercive strike, will be illegal. The question of the legality of a general strike is a matter of such constitutional importance that it cannot be left in any position of obscurity or doubt. This has to be answered definitely one way or the other and we cannot shilly-shally about it. In the words of a popular American song:
 If it ain't wrong, it's right.
I do feel that we do want a direct answer from the Government on that particular point. To me it appears quite futile, and an unnecessary waste of time, to be putting back the law into the position of obscurity which it occupied in 1926, which, as I understand it, is what the Government are asking us to do today.
Now, a word or two about Section 3 of the 1927 Act, which deals with intimidation. It is extremely difficult for the lay mind to comprehend fully the law on this subject. I listened very carefully to the learned Attorney-General, but I am afraid I am still rather vague about the position of the law on that point. As I understand it, one of the effects of the repeal of this particular Section will be to legalise in the future the picketing of a workman, his wife and children in his home. I know the home is not quite what it used to be, and that the Englishman's home today seems to be all too often regarded as the lawful playground of the collector of statistics, the political canvasser and the commercial tout and newspaper reporter and so on, and I do not know whether it is much more objectionable to have an odd peaceful picket or two round the house, than to have men arriving to inquire of the wife why she has not had more babies, or, possibly, some other person to solicit support and subscriptions for the very newest and latest peace movement. I think it is a quite unnecessary waste of the time of this House to be engaged in adding one more to the number of people who besiege a man in his home today. It even seems to me to be something of a paradox that a Socialist Government should be actually engaged in nationalising industries where trade disputes have been most frequent in

the past, and are most likely to occur in the future. When all is said and done, the unfortunate victim of peaceful picketing would probably not be guilty of a more heinous offence than his laudable desire to continue to work for the State, in spite of what his colleagues may be doing.
I want to deal briefly with Section 5 of the Act, which is concerned with the Civil Service. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington said the impartiality and integrity of the Civil Service had for long been the strength of the British Constitution, and the admiration of other countries who are less fortunate in this respect. The wholesale repeal of this Section, to my mind, will do nothing to stimulate those admirable virtues, but may well lessen public confidence and trust in this great service in the future. After repeal of this Section, a man in the Civil Service may well have two loyalties—one to. the Crown and Government of the day, and the other to the Trades Union Congress, with whom his union may be affiliated, and who may be working actively against the Government of the day and opposed to its policy. Such a man may well be working, in working hours, for the Government and, out of working hours, against the Government. No one can seriously consider that to be a desirable state of affairs. I can well see that a civil servant employed in a Government Department in Whitehall, is in a very different position to a manual worker in the Civil Service, who may be employed in the Post Office or an ordnance factory or even in a nationalised industry. In the first case, it is absolutely vital that the Government and the country can count upon his undivided loyalty. In the second place, it is obviously a question not so important. Soon, there is no doubt, the whole question of the relationship between the State and the trade unions in nationalised industries will have to come up for considerable review and be clarified, and I suggest that then, and not now, is the moment for the Government to decide which branches, if any, of the Civil Service, can safely be excluded from this Section without dangerously weakening the British Constitution.
I would like to say a word now about Section 4 and the vexatious question of the political levy. As I understand it, repeal of Section 4 will reverse the present system of contracting in to one of


contracting out. One of the effects, as indicated in the Press by the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle), may be to double the membership and subscriptions of the party opposite. I feel that to get this question in its proper perspective, we have all got to recognise, as, indeed, we all do, that, at the moment, the party opposite can rely upon a large and belligerent majority in the trade union movement. Other parties can only count upon the support of a small and largely passive minority, and this very fact, to my mind, is one of the main arguments at the moment—I am not saying what may happen in the future, when the support of the unions may well be transferred to other parties—for not reversing this system from contracting in, to contracting out. There are, today, many widely divergent views in the world as to what constitutes democracy, but I think the definition generally accepted by most people in this country is that democracy is a form of life or government, in which minorities not only enjoy the same freedom as majorities but are, if anything, given special consideration for the very fact that they are minorities, and I, there-fore, say that anything which runs counter to this definition can be said to be undemocratic.
I recognise that a case could well have been made out, say, up to 1914 or even until 1924, with the, arrival of the first Labour Government, for a system of contracting out. The trade union movement of that time was not the powerful political force in the country which it is today. Its representation in this House was restricted to a small handful of hon. Members, but no one today can claim that the trade union movement is politically insignificant or that its representation in this House is in any way inadequate. There seems to be no question, to my mind, that any advantage which might lie in the system of contracting in or contracting out should go to the benefit of those parties which represent only small minorities in the movement. Another argument which was put forward by the learned Attorney-General was that it really was less bother for a small minority to contract out, than for a large majority to have to go to the. trouble of contracting in, but I feel that we have to remember, on this question, that it is

not only a case of the physical effort of obtaining a form and filling it in that we have to consider.
There is a moral effort to be taken into consideration, with due respect to the learned Attorney-General, in this case which I consider by far the more important of the two. In every walk of life and more particularly in politics there is a certain moral effort required and very often immense courage to hold opinions which are different from and unpopular with those men and women with whom one has to live and work. It is always far easier, especially in politics, to swim with the stream, or if you are what the Left Wing textbooks call "politically stagnant," to drift with the stream, than to stand up to or fight against the stream of popular opinion. The repeal of this Section is a definite stab in the back to democracy. In my opinion, democracy can ill afford many such stabs today. I cannot help feeling that there must be many hon. Members in all parts of this House who are not such hardened politicians that they do not feel some slight qualms about the Vote which they are being asked to give on this Bill tomorrow night.
I feel that the Government in the introduction of this Bill stand in rather the same position as a soldier who goes on parade with dirty boots—an unfortunate position in which I myself have been, and in which hon. and gallant Members may also have found themselves. When one is in that position, and when the sergeant-major tells you that your boots are not only the dirtiest boots on that parade but on any other parade which he has ever attended, one is very stupid and ill advised to try to pretend that they are clean. It is quite true that one may, possibly with some hope of success, explain that one was on guard the previous night, and had not had time to clean them that morning, or that blacking had run out in the canteen, but no such excuse has been offered by the Government for the introduction of this grubby little Bill, soiled as it is with party politics and with the very unpleasant suggestion of almost certain financial gain to the party responsible for it. In those circumstances, I sincerely trust that this House will accord this Bill the treatment which it so richly deserves in the Lobby tomorrow night.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. George Hicks: I would like first to congratulate the Government on bringing forward this Measure, and to thank the learned Attorney-General for the excellent speech which he made in introducing the Bill. I must confess that at one period of his journey I myself was intimidated, and I shall have to ask him privately for some definitions of intimidation before I feel perfectly free.
I have long awaited this opportunity being presented to the House to assist in taking the controls off labour. The party opposite are always in favour of taking off controls, and I thought this would be an excellent opportunity for them to add one more to the controls that they wished to take off. Apparently there are some reasons why they are not too enthusiastic about this, however, although I do not feel that the enthusiasm for voting against this Bill is as real as the speeches have tried to demonstrate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) told us that before the 1927 Disputes Act we were losing 8,000,000 working days a year. I am sure it was not because he lacked resources, but had he been willing to calculate the 2,000,000 unemployed that we had at that period, and for years before and afterwards, he would have found something like 50,000,000 working days a year were lost because there was no employment. It is extraordinary how hon. Members opposite fasten upon the days lost through strikes, when one considers that the days lost through enforced idleness and through men being denied access to opportunity have been the result of the social system which they support so intensively.
Again, with regard to this question of the right to impose a condition of employment on members of trade unions, I am unable to see what is wrong with it. The Attorney-General may tell us that it is intimidation when a man is told that he should belong to a union, but candidly I am unable to see it. Let us take any ordinary avocation of life. How many people voluntarily pay their Income Tax? If a man is able to escape paying his Income Tax, he does so. I do not think there are many people who are anxious to pay it. Perhaps one could have a contracting in or contracting out Clause. On the question of men being willing to

receive all the advantages and benefits of wage negotiations, I have never known a non-unionist who was not willing to accept all the advantages. Judging by the railways there is a large number of people who try to ride without paying their fares.
Now let me come to what I think is the background of the 1926 dispute. I was fortunate enough to be a leading actor in the negotiations leading up to the 1926 dispute, and subsequently I remember vividly before the war of 1914–18 the Free Labour Organisation that was running in this country. Mr. Collinson was the director of it, and the object was to find money to fight the trade unions and to organise what labour was available. Those who were street-corner loungers and public-house loungers were taken to places where men had withdrawn their. labour, and overnight they were turned into props of England's pride. During the war of 1914–18 the Federation of Employers and the Federation of British Industries, two very powerful organisations, had assumed very great importance. The Federation of Employers was the economic organisation, and the Federation of British Industries was, more or less, on the commercial side advertising their wares abroad. In the country itself, the Federation of Employers assumed tremendous importance. They were handling all the questions of labour and conditions in every industry, and after the war they came into consultation with most of the industries and advised them how they were to deal with claims in respect of wages and conditions.
I myself took part in many negotiations, but I always found a stumbling block. The point that was always argued was that of international competition. Then there came the organised labour movement of this country and the trade union movement, which is not an accident or an incident, and which has not grown out of the perverseness of character of a few individuals, but has grown out of the economic and social conditions of our time. Whenever we were told about the international competition, we knew that there were bad conditions and low wages abroad, and we knew that British industry was, to some extent, adversely affected. We immediately took steps, through the International Labour Office, for promoting and assisting in promoting conventions throughout the whole of the


civilised world, fighting against bad conditions of labour and rates of pay so that British industry would not be unfairly handicapped when our goods competed in the international market. We took that stand definitely.
That did not prevent the Federation of British Industries—I think there have been some changes among the representative men whom I knew fairly well; I hope that had some influence—from using a fresh technique in dealing with labour disputes. They were no longer dealing with the small organisation that was not powerful enough to defend itself. Immediately after the war of 1914–18 there were disputes, first with the National Union of Railwaymen, then with the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, then with the great engineering industry, then with the textile industry and the building industry, and back again to the miners in 1925. There was a mass attack upon the standard of labour at that time. They were no longer dealing with small ones. We had my old friend, a former Member for Derby, Jim Thomas, who led the railwaymen in 1919 in order to try to defend a wage of£2 a week. Then there were my old friends Bob Smillie and Frank Hodges, who in 1921 were trying to defend the minimum wage of£2 or two guineas a week. The attack had to go on with the engineering industry, textiles and building and so on back to the miners in 1925.
Before 1914 the Free Labour Organisation run by Collinson was definitely attacking the standards of labour of the people of this country. Capitalism in all its viciousness was turned upon those standards. I know of no industries where there has been voluntarily offered to the men who have made the wealth of the country, an opportunity to participate in the fortunes of the industry. Every time there has been a demand for any improvement, it has had to be marshalled by the union, and there has had to be agitation and the threat of a strike in order to obtain any material improvement. Working men and women are not fools. In the trade union movement we have men and women with an extraordinary degree of intelligence. Men and women who were educated discussed this general tendency, and asked where it was leading. One after the other, the workers in the big industries—the railwaymen, the miners, the engineers, the textile

workers, the builders and again the miners—asked where was the end of all this, and they said there must be a halt called at some time or other. There was a triple alliance formed to fight the first struggle, but they were not powerful enough. The Trades Union Congress decided that it was necessary for the whole of the organised labour movement to call a halt to this attack upon the standards of life; otherwise, we were in danger of going into a morass from which there might have been no escape.
It is important to understand what led to the strike. The T.U.C. were so concerned that they established an industrial committee on this matter, and it was a very high powered committee because I was its chairman. The Trades Union Congress appointed this committee to watch over the negotiations and events. Mr. A. J. Cook was the secretary of the miners, Mr. Herbert Smith was the president and Mr. Richardson from Durham was the treasurer. Our task was to keep in touch with all the consultations which took place in order that the Trades Union Congress might be adequately informed, and in order that they might report to their affiliated societies exactly what had happened. Those who think this is a legal dispute should realise that, fundamentally, it was humanity that was causing this response. We got the response from the people. As a member of the general council, the circumstances necessitated that my colleagues and I should be leading actors in one of the greatest and noblest dramas in the history of our country. Despite all the pain that had to be endured afterwards—with all the ragged and fragmentary conditions and the victimisation which took place afterwards—it definitely called a halt and demanded some special consideration. Deep in my heart I possess a glowing pride in the part I was privileged to play, in serving trade unionism in that day. There were mistakes. It is a wonder we did not make more. We might have shown greater wisdom, but I marvel at the wisdom we did show. We were so tactful, so conciliatory, so willing to come to terms and so ready to resign ourselves to the acceptance of conditions which were universally recognised as bad and unnecessary. That was the attitude of the great trade union movement of which so many people have written and spoken.
There are many hon. Members in this House with wider and much more intimate knowledge of coalmining than I have, and, therefore, they have had firsthand experience of the hardships and perils. They have spent their lives in the coalfields. They have been beset by poverty and often overwhelmed by tragedy. They know the background, and they will be able to give more precise information than I can. But to say that I have never been in the coalmines would not be telling the truth. I was an organiser of my union for many years. I was organising building trade workers, and I was in the Welsh valleys and other valleys. When I remember the Welsh valleys I am reminded of the book "How Green Was My Valley," and of how uninviting and dark were the caverns beneath it. The men had to come out on strike to defend a wage of£2 a week because of the development of capitalism to try and drive them down. Men of great courage, discipline and comradely spirit faced danger and lived in very bad conditions. I have seen their houses. There is no amenity for them. The marvel is that the men and their families have tolerated what they have had to tolerate. It was that background which was responsible for the great upsurge of humanity and the response to the call that was made to come out in defence of the miner.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) was, I think, Chancellor of the Exchequer then and we remember his part in connection with the "British Gazette." Many of us recall reading that, when it was flown over from Paris every day, speaking about insurrection, and about the question of a social revolution, trying to convey to the minds of people in this country that we were out for a social revolution. I was one of those concerned and believe me if we had wanted to use the organisation for a social revolution, we would have done it in a totally different way. It was purely a trade dispute. It was definitely on that plane, and it was kept to a trade dispute. Great men and women of the trade unions movement, men of great experience, great negotiating experience, and great knowledge were there with their unions, all come to the aid of the miners in this trade dispute. Do hon. Members think they were out for insurrection at that time? But the propaganda against us was definitely bad, and in a moment

I will quote something that was spoken at that time, which I think was very bad.
I want to stress and emphasise strongly that the motive was profoundly human, a highly social one. It was trying to prevent the degradation of the standard of life. It extended over hundreds of thousands of workers. It was very likely to come on again unless it was stopped, and it could not be stopped by argument, it could not be stopped by good reason, it could not be stopped by splendid advocacy, and it could not be stopped by honeyed words. The only possible way to stop it was to cause sufficient inconvenience in industry to compel the other side to sit up and listen. [Hon. Members: "Blackmail."] That is perfectly true. My own industry have been compelled to come out in disputes from time to time. It was no use coming out for a month, five weeks, six weeks or two months; because the inconvenience would not be felt. When the railway men came out transport was at a standstill and immediately the thing was felt. Therefore, it is not a question of the justice of the claim of the particular industry that fits into the mosaic of our national life, but the amount of inconvenience they are able to cause.
In July, 1925, the mine owners demanded a series of wage reductions varying from 3s.to 15s.per week in the mining industry, according to the district, the abolition of the mimimum wage and probably longer hours in the pits. The Miners' Federation flatly refused that, and were supported by the Trades Union Congress. We had many meetings with the unions I was present at many meetings to see what could be done to assist in promoting settlement. We were very anxious for that. I will tell the House in a moment what happened in 1926 when we brought the present Lord Samuel, then Sir Herbert Samuel, back from Italy with a view to interpreting his own award in the hope that we would be able to get a decent settlement. Then it was decided that we should call a meeting of the affiliated unions. Pledges were given to assist the miners, materially and financially, in the event of a stoppage. As a result, the Government gave the miners a nine months' subsidy. I believe the figure was roughly£ 5,000,000, put up for the purpose of paying the difference for this period of nine


months between what would have been the ordinary wages and any loss that the owners might incur. At any rate, that was how the matter was stated to the public, but behind the scenes and in many secret ways I personally believe the organisation went on to promote the most reckless kind of class war one can ever imagine. I would like to read what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford said in the House on 10th December, 1925:
We were also impressed with the fact that the country as a whole was not sufficiently informed about the character and immense consequences of such a struggle as that with which it was confronted. It is quite clear that a conflict of this kind, launched in this way, might easily cease to be a mere ordinary industrial dispute about wages and conditions and might assume a character altogether different from such industrial disputes. If that were to ensue. then it is quite clear that such a conflict between the community on the one hand, with the Government at its head, and many of the great trade unions on the other, could only end in one way, namely, by the community, at whatever cost, emerging victorious over an organised section of its citizens, however valuable, important, and even numerous that section was. We considered, therefore, that should such a struggle be found to be inevitable at the very last moment, it was of supreme importance that it should only be undertaken under conditions which would not expose the nation needlessly or wantonly to perils the gravity of which cannot possibly be over-estimated. We therefore decided to postpone the crisis in the hope of averting it, or if not of averting it, of coping effectually with it when the time came. Accordingly, we entered upon an agreement with the employers to pay them for a period of nine months the adverse difference, if any, between the ascertained wage and the minimum wage, whatever that might be."— [Official Report, 10th December, 1925; Vol. 189, c. 733.]
I think that is a very illuminating statement. One of the most fantastic of the assumptions is that the nation is something apart from the working people. Nine-tenths of the people of this country either work for wages or depend upon wages for a livelihood. Who are the nation? I think it is a fantastic assumption to say that the community has to be preserved against itself. It is difficult to assume that the employers, the wealthy and privileged alone are the nation. Economic changes have long outmoded the outlook that the employers, the wealthy and the privileged are the nation. We are living in a different world altogether. The workers are educated. They

have had long training in methods of democracy. We have trained them in democracy, in discipline and in understanding and loyalty to their trade unions, to their co-operative societies, to their political organisations. They are very well-educated, and I would say they have, generally, a higher level of social consciousness than those who oppose them.
When the national dispute took place, it was in fact an active response to a challenge, and was permeated with the comradeship of the people of mutual aid and sacrifice. Men came out on strike when it meant their livelihood would be in jeopardy, when it meant additional debts to many, and to others who had not previously incurred debts it meant debts would be established. It meant privation, and very often hunger. In spite of all that, they came out in their millions, a mighty upsurge on behalf of the miners. Whatever Act of Parliament you may put on the Statute Book, you will never be able to legalise sympathy out of existence. Sympathy springs from deep down in the hearts and minds of men when they feel injustice is being done. They came out as a protest against the terrible conditions. One of the most glorious sights in life is when you see a man standing up, without resources, defying all the agencies around him in order that he may defend all that is his for his wife, his children and his home. Is there any grander sight than that? I love to see a man do that—I would rather see him do that than cringing, crawling, and begging for help.
Here were these men, beset with poverty, living in terrible conditions, sacrificing their jobs by the million and standing up in defence of a great human principle. May God grant that it will always be so. I feel that very intensely. The House knows as well as I know that a strike against intolerable conditions is one of the most glorious sights of life. Thousands of men with settled, permanent and well-paid jobs joined in the strike, including many railwaymen, some of them station masters, who were on the point of being pensioned. They came out in defence of the miners. Those who have not been in and out of the working class movement are unable to understand this, but these men came out in defence of the miners in 1926. There was a great display of force—we saw the soldiers being


mobilised in the parks, but we would not allow them to be used. We kept clear of that.
I am sure hon. Members will believe me when I say that I felt this matter very strongly. I felt that it was a wonderful thing. I regretted its necessity, as everyone did, and we tried our best to prevent it, but we did not succeed. Millions came out in the general strike in defence of the homes of a million miners, in a grand battle. The Government took provocative action, with its display of force, but I do not propose to dwell upon that. In spite of the taunts that were made at the time, and have frequently been made since, the unions held steadfastly to the conception that it was, and must be, considered as an industrial dispute, and that it should be kept to the traditional course of such a dispute. There is no need for me to emphasise that my colleagues on the Trades Union Congress were able men—they are now—and those who think that this Bill will make them into chartered libertines who will ride roughshod over every other interest ought to look at where they come from. They feel a deep resentment against this piece of legislation, and they have asked us to put it right. I hope we shall put it right.
We were not seeking a social revolution by any means. No doubt this great dispute came to a ragged conclusion. Many of those who took part had lost their jobs, though the only thing that could be charged against them was that they came out in defence of the homes of a million miners, whom they were trying to assist in preventing further degradation. They came out for 10 days, and in many cases when they went to get their jobs back they were unable to do so. Many of the bigger unions were able to use their power to see that their members were restored, but some were not. Had there been any general understanding and wisdom on the other side the dispute would never have taken place. 
I remember the negotiations with Lord Samuel, who was Chairman of the Coal Commission. He was in Italy writing a book, and we sent for him to come home. I took part in the conference we had with him in a house in a London square with the miners' representatives, seeking to interpret the conclusions in his own Report. He was frustrated, as we all were, because at the back of it all I believe there

was a definite willingness to engage in a struggle and prevent a reasonable settlement being arrived at. It was thought that we were down and out, that the time was opportune to go a bit further, and fasten the chains of servitude more firmly upon the people. I believe that that was the feeling and sentiment of that time.
But it was not true. It served as a great rallying time, it made plain to the trade unionists who were their most bitter opponents. It embittered civil servants, and particularly the postal workers, and it showed how vital were political organisation and activity, and the political levy clause. It showed the importance of that, and I want to see it reinstated. I want to see more money coming in. I want to see the position that we now occupy confirmed. We shall confirm it, not only by money but by understanding. I was chairman of the Trades Union Congress in Edinburgh next year, and I made a speech that became famous, and was responsible for efforts being made to see what could be done to surmount the difficulties. Perhaps many hon. Members will never have heard of it, but we did engage in some discussion to see how far it was possible to discuss conditions, between workmen and employers, with a view to further general progress.
It was my task to assemble the somewhat battered ranks of labour—they were battered, many of them were soured and bitter, many of them were not too polite, and we were put to great inconvenience because we had not triumphed. This Act gave the unions and the Labour movement a wonderful stimulus. We had multitudinous meetings throughout the country, and hundreds of thousands of workers pledged themselves definitely never to let up until this Act was repealed. The Act has been a source of burning resentment, and if ever an Act failed in its purpose I believe this one did. It failed because it was impossible to abolish sympathy by Act of Parliament. Deep down in the hearts of men will ever rise protest against oppression and injustice. It is to the greater glory of mankind that it is so.
I am a very proud man to-night, having taken some part, during my life, in assisting in organising workers under very difficult conditions, helping to build up an organisation, calling attention in


a disciplined way to things that were wrong, enlisting public sympathy and support, and presenting and marshalling facts and arguments before employers. I have helped to try and improve the lot of the people, and the action we took in 1926, and the spontaneous response of millions of people in this country, was one of the most glorious things I ever witnessed.
This Act was a vindictive Act intended to chain us further and hold us still deeper down. Now, thanks to the electorate and thanks to the Labour Party and this Government, we have an opportunity of re-establishing the old position, and I am very glad and proud of it. I sit down in the full knowledge that this Act will surely be repealed, and I hope that it will redound to the credit of this country and the world at large that this act of justice has at last been performed.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Kendall: I welcome the opportunity of speaking tonight, and while other hon. Members have spoken purely from the political standpoint and others purely from the trade union standpoint, I want to approach the matter from the industrial standpoint. If I criticise some of the points made by the Attorney-General it is simply because I am seriously concerned with the effect on industry. I should like to assure the Attorney-General that my criticisms have not been stimulated by any propaganda from the Tory Party. I opposed them successfully on two occasions in my constituency, and indeed their propaganda usually fills me with a good deal of misgiving and mistrust.
I am concerned with what may happen in consequence of the total abolition of this Act. I think it is true to say that in the last six years there has been greater understanding between employers, employees and the trade unions, than ever before, and it is a vital necessity that there should be a continuation of the full co-operation of the three groups in industry. Indeed, in my own factory I have never yet operated without having a full agreement with the trade unions, because I have found that extremely helpful and extremely valuable. Nevertheless, the Attorney-General today spoke about the

majority of the factories of this country being closed shops. Mine are not closed shops, because I believe it is an imposition on the liberty of the individual to be compelled to belong to something to which, maybe, he does not want to belong. Let the propaganda and the work of the trade unions be such that they can attract all the workers into the unions for their protection where protection is necessary. Where intimidation has indeed taken place—and many hon. Members on the Government side know this is true as well as I do—is in some of these closed shops, where there are men and women who did not want but had to belong to a specific trade union otherwise they could not work. Do not let us take this a step further, by imposing a general condition that a man or a woman automatically belongs to a political party unless he or she will contract out. I think this is most improper. Many workmen today, and quite rightly so, belong to all political parties, the Labour Party, the Liberal Party, the Tory Party, and, of course, the best of them are Independants. I am concerned as an employer and I try to be a good employer, with the significance of the political levy, in particular. I do not run a political party fund, so the finance of myself being involved does not arise. It is true, or has been true, that the Tory Party have had great moneys paid into their political fund, but there has been no compulsion. Let us give them credit for that. I do not give them credit for much. I cannot. But let us give them that much credit.

Major Cecil Poole: Whilst I agree with the hon. Member that there may have been no compulsion, surely, he will admit there has been the greatest possible inducement.

Mr. Kendall: I do, but there has still been no compulsion. I ask the hon. and gallant Member not to attempt to carry me away on this kind of argument, because I shall have to attack his party for the same reasons of political advancement being a reward for belonging to a political party. Do not take me off on that, or I shall have to give an election address. I say with all sincerity, we have heard speeches on the Opposition side, and rather nasty ones, about the fact that a lot of houses have not been built and that there is a food shortage. This has been public political propaganda against


the Labour Party and the Labour Government. I am not entering into that. I am wishing the Labour Government well. I do not think the Government have had time enough yet to get on with the tremendous tasks they have before them. [An Hon. Member: "Or the food."] The hon. Member does not look as though he has gone hungry. I do say this, that in wishing the Labour Government well, I wish that whoever is to answer this Debate for the Government will tell me whether or not something is to be introduced subsequently to give the men and women of the trade organisations absolute political freedom without form-filling in any shape or form; so that we may take away the lists of those who contracted in previously and the lists of those who have contracted out now. I hope we shall be told that something is to be done to give real political freedom to the factories and workshops. Without it we shall have—as there has been—intimidation in many factories and workshops of workpeople to join a specific union. There will be the possibility without this protection of taking political affiliation to the point of intimidation. There is this possibility, and it is a dangerous possibility and not one worthy of this Government.
The Labour Government and party have a great chance today to attach many people to their party by good government, not by the imposition that will come from the total abolition of the 1927 Act. Get your affiliation because you are worthy of it. Get your money for your political funds because the people say you are worthy of having those funds. The Labour Party does not have to fear the folk of the Conservative Party—not for one moment. The Labour Government have the greatest opportunity that any Government has had in recent years, certainly in this century. Do not throw it away. Attract by good government the kind of people you want into your party and do not impose this contracting-out clause. It is no good the, Attorney-General saying that when intimidation occurs one can appeal to the Registrar-General of Friendly Societies. He may be the most admirable man in the country, but the ordinary man in the workshop, the turner, the driller, the grinder, does not know anything about the Registrar-General of Friendly Societies, who is to give him protection in

contracting out. Political intimidation takes place. It already takes place in here. I have had experience of that personally from Members of the Tory Party, but, thank God, they do not get away with it. Indeed, it was Labour Members who came across and gave me and my kind a good deal of help.

Mr. Proctor: Tell us all about it.

Mr. Kendall: It would take up the time of the House a little too much, but I will give the House some facts. I remember my introduction to this House of Commons in 1942 when I fought a by-election, and how quickly I was challenged on the Floor of this House on the Public Accounts Committee Report—a horrible and shocking experience for any Member of this House to have to go through because of some of the actions and pressure of right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Members of the Tory Party. When the true facts were known I was not only given complete exoneration but credit for my workers and myself for having done a most creditable piece of war work. It was this Government which gave justice in that extremely important matter which affected the livelihood of so many. With the help of the A.E.U. in particular—I take great pleasure in publicly thanking them for their assistance on that particular issue and this Government for all the help they have given to some 3,000 of us. But to abolish in toto the whole of the 1927 Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act does fill me with great misgiving in respect of the political set-up that may take place in the factories and industries of the country.
There is one further point which I wish to deal with. I gave a promise and a pledge with regard to Section 5 of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act in respect of civil servants and their free right to decide whether or not they want to affiliate with the T.U.C. I would support the abolition, absolutely and totally, of Section 5 which interferes with their right as to whether or not they shall belong to a trade union organisation that is tied up with other organisations outside the Civil Service. I believe that Section. must be and should be abolished, as it interferes with the liberties of the individual, which are dear to so many of us. I hope that before it comes to voting, the Government will give some kind of assur-


ance to protect free political affiliations of the individual, because there are millions of people terribly interested and worried and indeed affected by this one particular Section in the Act— that of contracting out.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. Haworth: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to make my first speech in this House on a subject which is so very dear to my heart. I decided on my election that I would try to make my maiden speech on the repeal of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act. As it turned out, I am afraid that I backed a loser, because I have had to wait a long time under very great provocation at times from Members of the opposite benches who have taunted me and many other hon. Members with being a solid phalanx voting without thought for the policy we promised when we placed ourselves before the electorate.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall) has tried to examine this Bill impartially, but he has one or two misgivings with which I would like to deal as impartially as it is possible for one who feels strongly about the rectification of what he believes to be a great wrong. So far as compulsory trade unionism is concerned, I say quite definitely that I do not believe in it, and I do not think there are many members in the Labour ranks who do believe in it. We want to convince people who are eligible for membership that our organisation is worth joining, because any union that can rely on voluntary membership is in a much stronger position in its activities than a union which has to resort to compulsory membership. It is very rare, if it exists at all, for members to be forced to join a union, although there is, as has been mentioned by the Attorney-General, a feeling of distaste on the part of people who have to work alongside others who are getting all the benefits but are not prepared to pay for them. That is a difficult problem, and it is only natural that we should feel some distaste and misgiving against people who are getting all the benefits for which we are striving and yet are not prepared to pay for them. Being human beings, we cannot help that feeling.
There is freedom in the union of which I am a member—the Railway Clerks'

Association. We have an annual conference which decides our policy, and time and time again we have defeated resolutions asking for compulsory trade union membership. We turned them down because we think they are wrong. I say frankly with regard to the clause, which, it has been said, gives powers to local authorities to make membership of a trade union compulsory, that it does not. All it does is to remove the prohibition in the Act of 1927. I have been a member of a local authority for 17 years, and we have steadfastly resisted, although we have a Labour majority, any attempt to make membership compulsory on the part of our servants. I am speaking personally, but I think that any local authority which makes a condition of service compulsory upon membership of a trade union is making a great mistake. It is only in rare instances, if any, that compusory membership does exist. On these things I agree with the criticism of the hon. Member.
Now let me come to matters on which I disagree. I am devoting myself particularly to the speech of the hon. Member for Grantham, because I think that he is trying to view this matter impartially, so far as possible. He is afraid of a compulsory political levy. I want to ask right hon. Members and hon. Members if they can give me instances in this democratic country of ours of any organisations where, after having taken a majority decision, the individual members of that organisation have to take an individual, personal step to do something which they have decided to do as an organisation. Before trade unions can join the Labour Party we have to engage in an educational campaign to try to convince the members that the Labour Party is worth joining. My union is a black-coated workers' organisation, which sometimes considers itself a little above the ordinary black-faced workers. We find great difficulty in trying to convince them that they should belong to the working class movement. We have to engage on an educational campaign, and we have to get a ballot vote in order to join the Labour Party. We hamstrung ourselves in 1927 when we passed a resolution that we must have a two-thirds majority before we could join the Labour Party.
We got it eventually by active propaganda work among our membership. We convinced our people that the Labour


Party was worth joining. The Labour Party is the child of the trade union movement. The trade union movement have tried the Tory Party and the Liberal Party for generations, and then they came to the conclusion, after long experience, that if they wanted anything done in the way of legislation, which was going to benefit the workers of this country, they must form their own political movement. We on the railways are particularly affected by legislation, and from time to time have had to come to this honourable House for their assistance. We are grateful to Members on both sides for the help given to us in the past in order to get things remedied which we thought were wrong. If that is the case it is natural that we should want to join that particular party, but to do so we had to get the majority of our members to agree. I want to ask if any Member knows of any other organisation where, after having a vote and deciding on a course of action, it is necessary for every individual to take steps to confirm it. Why should it be if we are a democratic people who believe in majority rule?
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) went to Preston recently and unsuccessfully tried to get the Tory candidate returned. He used a phrase which caused me some surprise when I read it. It was to the effect that the restoration of the principle of contracting out, as against contracting in, would be constitutionally wrong. He has been in the Diplomatic Service, or at any rate he has served in the Foreign Office. He has done wonderfully well, if I might say so— I hold him in very great respect— and he has learned the use of words. I was surprised to learn that he used a word like "constitutional" with regard to the position of contracting in and contracting out, because, very humbly, I suggest that the constitutional position is, that the majority having decided to affiliate, then all must affiliate. That is democratic rule, but we go beyond that.
In our anxiety to be fair we say, although we have decided as a majority to go into the Labour Party, it would not be fair to compel people who have other political views to pay their levy even if they do not want to. Therefore, we take the extra step which is repeated in very rare cases— the Attorney-General mentioned vaccination, and that is one. in-

stance where one can object, but there are very few cases in this country where it is given to the individual to depart as an individual from a majority decision—of agreeing to a member contracting out against the wishes of the majority. Can anyone quarrel with that? The hon. Member for Grantham spoke about the fear of having a list of those who contract out. May I say to him—and I know from 25 years' experience of running a trade union—that we have not, generally speaking, the slightest idea who is contracting out and who is contracting in? It is only the branch secretary who keeps the books who knows, and Members of this House, who are members of a trade union branch, know that that is a fact. We are not curious about it. We do not know who they are and we do not take any steps to find out. They are entitled to their opinion, and if they think that the Tory Party, although it is inexplicable to most of us, is the right political party to support, then good luck to them. They are entitled to contract out.
My last point is with regard to the general strike. I took part in that general strike and it is one of the proudest things in my life. I am a member of the Railway Clerks' Association. We never in our 50 years of history found it necessary to declare a strike for our own objects. Yet we came out on strike in 1926 in defence of the miners. Do not hon. Members opposite think that there must have been something exceptional to justify a course of action like that? Do they remember what happened? In 1925 there was nearly trouble, and the subsidy was granted to the coalowners in order to prepare for the "show down "in 1926. They left the position so that no self-respecting trade unionist in 1926 could do other than come out in support of his brothers in the mining industry who were being attacked. That is what we had to face at that time and we came out. I am the national treasurer of my association. We spent£ 242,000 in that strike which was more than the wealth we had in our coffers at that time. Do right hon. and hon. Members think we would lightly engage on a thing of that kind, losing the wealth that we had accumulated over the years and creating the misery which was created unless there was some principle at stake? High class stationmasters were sent out to work in country stations and


kept there for over two years for having gone on strike. That is the kind of thing that happened as a result of our battle for solidarity at that time.
I hope and believe that we shall not have a repetition of that kind of thing. This is not a Bill to authorise a general strike, for we do not want a general strike. I do not believe there will ever be another; I cannot imagine that there will ever be a Government which will deliberately work for it as did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wood-ford (Mr. Churchill) and my illustrious predecessor who represented the division of Walton—F. E. Smith, who later became Lord Birkenhead. In my view those two were the chief people who engineered the strike in order to try to put the workers where they wanted them, and because I cannot believe that that will ever happen again, I do not think there need be any fear of a general strike. I shall go into the Lobby tomorrow night with a happy heart, firstly, because I have got my maiden speech off my chest, and secondly, and most important, because, although I am a new Member of this House, I am already beginning to be jealous of its traditions, and I firmly believe that those traditions will be sweeter, better and cleaner by the removal from the Statute Book of this obnoxious Measure.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: The hon. Member for Walton (Mr. Haworth) can give another reason for happiness and that is that his maiden speech was an extraordinarily good one. It is not often that, in a maiden speech, a Member indulges in the cut and thrust of debate and deals with the arguments of speakers who have preceded him. The hon. Member was full of his subject, and delivered his speech fairly, sensibly and persuasively. It is my pleasure to congratulate him and I hope we shall hear him often in the future. I also take this opportunity as an old Member of the House of congratulating the Attorney-General. I congratulate him even more sincerely as an old member of the Bar and as an old King's Counsel. His speech was not only a Parliamentary triumph; it was a forensic triumph. While I am in the congratulatory mood

may I also congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden)? Those of us who remember the atmosphere in the House on the 1927 Measure, are entitled to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman for introducing into this Debate an air of reasonable inquiry, instead of the passion which there was in the Chamber in that year.
The effect of this Bill will not be to create any new position. It will be to' restore the position as it was under the Acts of 1906 and 1913, for which my predecessors in the Liberal Party, which then formed the Liberal Government, were responsible. They voted against the 1927 Bill, because they regarded it as unnecessary, ill-timed, and ill-advised and, what is more— as so many Members of the Labour Party at that time regarded it— as containing a certain measure of political punishment and vindictiveness. I think the Members of my Party at that time were right. Their view, which was the view expressed by the Attorney-General today, was that a general strike, in the sense in which the hon. and learned Gentleman defined it—and his definition was the clearest I have yet heard from any legal adviser—was that what was illegal before 1927 will remain illegal when the 1927 Act is repealed. When a strike is aimed at the Constitution, when men bring pressure to bear by combining together— instead of using ordinary constitutional methods to bring down the Government, to change the view of the Government— to endanger the community there is no one who would not say that that, under the law of England, has been a punishable offence.
That was a view which was taken by eminent members of the legal profession, and also by the Conservative Government. The Attorney-General at that time, Sir Douglas Hogg, now Lord Hail-sham was careful to explain, when introducing the 1927 Bill, that Clauses 1, 2 and 3 were really declaratory of the existing law. He said that the Bill was not making any new laws, but was purely making clear, beyond a peradventure, what was the general view at that time. I want it to be clearly understood that my colleagues and I, and, I believe, Members on all sides of the House, regard a general strike, in the sense that was used by the Attorney-General, as a revolutionary com-


bination to achieve an object other than the settlement of an industrial dispute, or an improvement in wages and hours, as not only being illegal under the 1927 Act, but one which will still be illegal when that Act has gone.
I commend to the House the words of another very eminent lawyer, who was Prime Minister and leader of my Party. Great lawyer though he was, I do not think that he was more precise in this respect than the Attorney-General has been today. Lord Oxford and Asquith said that what distinguished a general strike from all others was this: "That it is a blow not struck by one combatant at the other, but one which is directed, whether in intention or in fact, by its inevitable results at the very vitals of the community." There is not one of us who. would say that such a strike is legal under the Common Law of England.
I agree that difficulty arises, as it arose under the 1927 Act, in distinguishing precisely when a strike which, in its initiation is legal, may become illegal as time goes on. It is largely a question of fact as to when it ceases to be legal and becomes illegal. I do not think that under that Act or, indeed, under any other, the position can be made absolutely clear and definite. I would prefer to leave it as it was before the 1927 Act came into existence. A mere declaration, under an Act of Parliament, that a step is illegal, or likely to be punishable as an illegality, will not prevent men who are deeply moved by a situation, and who are determined to take tremendous risks, from striking. I think the "Manchester Guardian" put it extremely well when it stated that an Act of Parliament will no more stop men from acting illegally under such circumstances than the Treason Act stopped Cromwell and his soldiers from taking the action they did.
I remember another illustration, which was used by Mr. Philip Snowden, as he then was, in one of his greatest Parliamentary efforts in that Parliament of. which he was a Member. He asked if such a situation arose, and it could only arise when feelings were deeply moved, when there was something tremendous at issue, and the whole of the trade union movement came out in support of it, how could you then put five million men in the dock, and prosecute them? But, nevertheless, let it be clearly understood

that a general strike, in that sense, is illegal and wrong, and that any person refusing to take part in it can be protected.
The Attorney-General was absolutely right about intimidation, which was illegal before the 1927 Act came into being. A threat of any kind against any man to compel him to do something against his will has always been illegal, and a criminal offence, under the Common Law of this country. Section 3 of the Act added practically nothing of any value. My view is that if Sections 1, 2 and 3 were removed, the law would remain just as clear and just as effective as it was prior to the 1927 Act.
I come now to Sections 4, 5 and 6, and I will begin with Sections 5 and 6. Section 5 prevents civil servants from being associated with the Trades Union Congress, or with any political party. We feel that civil servants, like anybody else, should be allowed freedom of association. We feel, however, that they should not, owing to the very circumstances of democratic government in this country, affiliate with any political party. It would be better if they did not do so, because of the changes of parties and the changes of Government. We prefer, however, to leave that to their own judgment rather than to prevent them from enjoying the right of every free British man to choose his own associates. I do not think there is any danger in giving this right to the Civil Service. I think the last, and indeed the only, time on which there was a strike among civil servants was as long ago as 1890, when the letter-carriers in the Post Office struck at one of the London offices. That took place before they were affiliated with any other trade union. Section 6 makes it legal for a local or public authority to discriminate in certain ways between a unionist and a non-unionist. Again, I cannot see any real distinction at the present time between a local authority employer and any other employer. The only thing I suggest to the Government is that possibly, since the decision in the case of Moscrop v. the London Transport Passenger Board, they might perhaps think it more helpful to them if this Section were to remain on the Statute Book. Undoubtedly, it helps in the case of difficulties caused by breakaway unions and unofficial strikes. However, for reasons to which I shall refer


later, I think no great harm will be done if this Section is repealed.
I come to Section 4. It is on this Section that I and my colleagues have received most letters, from every part of the country. I would remind the House that it was in 1913 that we put on the Statute Book the provision concerning contracting-out. Section 4 of the 1927 Act reversed that position, and instead of contracting-out, there was contracting-in. The Attorney-General said, quite rightly and fairly, that contracting-in did show a difference, but he then said that it was right that advantage should be taken of the inertia of some people. He said it was right that, the trade union having decided by a majority in a secret ballot in favour of a political affiliation, the action should be binding upon the minority, but that under the 1913 Act, complete freedom was given to the men to contract-out, and that provision worked extraordinarily well. Then came the 1927 Act, which reversed the position, and said that before a man paid he must agree to do so, and that he must hand the money in for the particular political purpose. Experience shows that the moment that new system was introduced the political funds fell. I should have thought that, for the sake of the trade union movement and the Labour Party, hon. Members opposite would have preferred to have a voluntary payment, made by somebody believing implicitly in the political faith of the trade union, to taking advantage even of the inert person who does not bother. Surely, it is much better to have enthusiastic men contributing towards your political funds than to rely upon the fellow who does not care. I agree that under both systems the fellow who does not care need not subscribe.
This matter has sunk deeply into the minds of the people I ask the Government to put down an Amendment to retain Section 4 as it is now. To do so will do them no good and it will not do them a great deal of harm. It will, at any rate, maintain in a clear and better form the democratic principles in which they and I believe, that a man should be absolutely free to decide to what political party he will belong and to what political fund he will subscribe; and when he has made that decision, he will put his hand in his pocket willingly and knowingly to

make the necessary subscription to help his party to achieve its objectives. I do not intend to go into the figures now, because the Attorney-General dealt with them so fairly, but there is one that I will mention. This is a matter of really vital importance, since the Labour Party gets most of its support from the trade unions. The figures given in the report of the 40th Annual Conference, in 1941, are rather striking. I quote from the statement of receipts: Labour parties, subscribed including arrears,£ 5,839; Socialist societies,££ 72 9s. Id.; trade unions,£ 38,513.[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear those cheers. Those were voluntary subscriptions under the 1927 Act. I press the Government to adhere to that scheme. I do not think that any deep principle is involved in the Clause. I agree with Sir Herbert Samuel, as he then was, when he said that there could not be any deep principle. It is only a question of which is the truer, better, more democratic and fairer method. I suggest to the Attorney-General and his colleagues that before we part with the Bill they should consider an Amendment on the lines I have proposed.
I finish on this point. We shall vote for the Second Reading, but that will not be enough. When the Government say, "We have cleared the decks, we have removed the festering sore, we have done away with the punishment and we have now got a clear sheet, we can go back to 1913," that will not be enough. My party has had a long and honourable record in this matter, beginning with the Charter of 1871. In 1906, we removed the objections that had been created by the Taff Vale judgment. That was one of the first Acts we introduced upon coming into power in the full flush of victory. Then again, after the Osborne judgment, it was the Liberal Party that brought in the Act of 1913, to which we are now to go back. But it will not be enough to go back to 1913. Tremendous changes have taken place since then in the social and economic organisation and in the position of trade unions. Still greater changes are about to take place.
When the legislation has been passed nationalising mines, transport, electricity and other industries, what is to happen to the old Section 5 of the Act of 1927? I do not know how we are to draw a distinction between a miner working for


the Government and the Permanent Secretary to the Home Office.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: There is a very simple distinction. One will be employed by the National Coal Board and the other by the Home Office.

Mr. Davies: They will both be paid out of public funds.

Mr. Macmillan: No, Sir. If the Coal Industry Bill means what it says, the miners will be paid by the Board out of the proceeds of the coal.

Mr. Davies: I am suggesting that men will be employed in tremendous numbers under the Government and that when there is an industrial dispute between them and their employers it will no longer be, as it has been in the past, a dispute between two sets of subjects with the Government holding the balance and watching the interests of the community. It will be a dispute between a set of subjects and the Government themselves. A very serious situation might arise.
The right to strike must remain. 1 would never be a party to abolishing that right. I think it is fundamental that an individual man shall, if he so desires, be free to withhold his labour. What is to be the position? We are now starting upon what we rightly call a new era. We are passing legislation that will have a tremendous effect upon working conditions. I would warn the Government that if their machinery breaks down the whole thing will come collapsing around them and that the position will then be far worse than if we had never started. I would refer again to strikes and say that strikes are evil things. Nobody likes them, least of all the strikers; who are the people that suffer most. The next who suffer are the little tradesmen whose customers are out on strike. During those long strikes in South Wales, how many little grocers or butchers went out of business? The next who inevitably suffer are the community. Nobody likes strikes. They are a bad way of settling a dispute. They are almost like war, to which we ought not to resort except as a final and extreme measure when everything else has failed and honour itself is at stake.
I appeal to the Government, and indeed to all who support them in this House, that when they have got this Bill,

have made a clean slate and have gone back to 1913, let them not rest there. There is a great work which the Government can do, and do now. I ask them to do it as early as they can. Bring in a New Charter in which the whole position will be defined as clearly as possible. Let them put in it the best machinery they can possibly devise for settling disputes. Disputes will arise; they are inevitable. The machinery has to be efficient, effective, and quick moving Above all, it must have the confidence of everybody. It is not beyond the wit of man to devise it. Let them do that, and I am sure that they will carry with them the good will of all men in this House who desire industrial peace, so that we may use our best endeavours, co-operating together, to maintain this old land once again in the forefront of first-class nations and a leader of other nations in the future.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Hon. Members on the other side of the House have imputed to hon. Members on this side, I think, stupidity and arrogance. It may well be considered both stupid and arrogant for a new Member to attempt to make his maiden speech on so controversial a subject. I should like to express my envy and my admiration of the way in which the hon. Member for Walton (Mr. Haworth) conducted himself in making his maiden speech. I had a particular pleasure in seeing him do so well by virtue of the fact that he is one of my constituents. In speaking upon so controversial a Measure I do ask for an extra measure of indulgence, and in order to deserve it I shall try to restrain myself. To my mind this Bill is a bad Bill because it is inopportune, because its consequences are objectionable, and because, so far as its form is concerned, it constitutes a very bad precedent. The Prime Minister, in his speech on the Address, ended by using these words:
To win through this critical period in our history will require, I think, the continuance of something of the spirit which won the war, a spirit which did not allow private or sectional interests to obscure the common interests of us all."— [Official Report, 16th August, 1945; Vol, 413, c. 113.]
Admirable sentiments, but how lamentable has been the performance as compared with the promise! It is difficult to conceive a Bill worse than this from


the point of view of being designed to safeguard a purely sectional interest. The paramount needs of the country at the present time are food, houses, and the restoration of trade and industry, and to achieve all this I believe that we shall need something of the spirit which enabled us to win the war. What a time, when those are the real needs, to introduce a Measure which is highly controversial, which, as we have seen here this afternoon, rakes up the embers of old controversies and also involves, with all respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General, legal points of considerable obscurity. The explanation for the introduction of this Measure may be twofold. Either the leaders of the T.U.C. have demanded their pound of flesh, or, alternatively or possibly in addition, the Government are failing so signally to meet the ordinary common needs that they feel that the dust of this controversy is necessary to act as a smoke screen.
The second reason why I suggest that this Bill is quite inopportune is that as indicated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), we have been confronted, Thursday after Thursday, by the Lord President of the Council complaining about the shortage of Parliamentary time. He has appeared, week by week, complaining that he has no time to allow, for example, for bettering the lot of the old-age pensioner during this winter. For two months he was unable to produce the time for the Debate on Palestine which was promised; and we have had no time to Debate the reorientation of our Armed Forces or the Imperial and Colonial developments which are so very vital at the present time. Each week we have been told that there is no Parliamentary time for these things. In my submission, the introduction of this Bill, which is bound to consume a certain amount of Parliamentary time, makes the weekly performance of the Lord President of the Council even more cynical than we had already thought it to be, and we are driven to the conclusion that the Socialist solution for a shortage of Parliamentary time is just what it is with food— to make it even shorter still.
That is my second reason for saying that the Bill is inopportune. My third reason is that the consequences are as I suggest, objectionable, and the first

matter to be considered in this respect is the legality or otherwise of the general strike. Before this Debate began I was in some doubt as to whether it would be necessary to discuss that matter at all, but we have had from at least two hon. Members on the other side what has amounted to an attempted complete justification of the general strike. The hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. G. Hicks) and the hon. Member for Walton have shown very clearly to the House, I suggest, that they are not the least bit ashamed or penitent— [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear"]—and that the Socialist movement as a whole—and I am pleased to hear the cheers—is not the least bit ashamed or penitent about the general strike [Hon. Members: "Not a bit."] That being so, it is very necessary for me to put some questions to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General.,
We do not have to examine hypothetical cases. Here we have a perfectly clear instance of something that happened. I listened carefully to the speech of the Attorney-General but I am in complete uncertainty whether he says that the general strike of 1926 was legal or not. If he says it was, we know exactly where we are, and we know the menace that the people of this country may have to smash once again, and I believe that the people will be ready to smash another general strike just as they did that of 1926. One hon. Member on the other side of the House said that the people constituted the strikers, and asked how they could smash themselves. The reason why the general strike was smashed, was because it was a section of the community attempting to elevate itself above the interests of the community as a whole and impose its will upon the whole community by means which the community considered unfair. If the attitude of the Labour Party on this issue is that the general strike of 1926 was legal, and that they will do it again if they get the chance, then the country also knows exactly where it is. If the hon. and learned Gentleman says that the general strike of 1926 was illegal, great though my respect is for his legal opinion, I think it would be better if that opinion were confirmed by some statutory provision as at the present time it is by Section 1 of the 1927 Act. Thirdly, if


he says, as I think he did rather indicate, that he does not know whether it was legal or not, then why not have the matter made absolutely clear beyond a peradventure in some statutory provision? I submit that the public are entitled to a perfectly clear, decisive answer on this point as to whether a general strike is considered to be legal or not.
The hon. and learned Attorney-General said that really there was no point in having it declared illegal by Statute because such a law could never possibly be enforced. That is a doctrine which fills me with a certain amount of astonishment. It may foe true that the enforcement might at a particular period present considerable difficulties, but how much better that people should know beforehand what is lawful and what is unlawful. How much greater is the chance of their complying with the law if they know it in advance. My contention is that under the 1927 Act as it stands there can be no doubt of what the law is. Another speaker made reference to the fact that it is impossible to put 5,000,000 men in the dock. I agree that in the heat of a strike it would probably be futile to attempt to impose the sanction of the law. On the other hand the fact that the sanctions of the law could be imposed is a very considerable deterrent to the leaders. There is no reason why their fear of subsequent penalties might not moderate their conduct in the course of the dispute, and one must remember that the general council of the T.U.C. did not really begin to act reasonably in the general strike until Lord Simon made his pronouncement that they might be liable to the uttermost farthing of their personal possessions for their wrongful acts. Throughout the other consequences of this Bill, I suggest that it is possible to detect the totalitarian bias of the Government, and to those who believe that Socialism can only be efficient if it is coercive that will come as no surprise.
With regard to the political levy to which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) referred, it should be dealt with, I suggest, as a matter of fact, and not of principle. I think there was something in what my hon. Friend the Member for Walton said on that point, but in fact in 1943 under contracting-in 43 per cent. of trade unionists paid the political levy, while in

1926 under contracting-out 77 per cent. had to pay it. So it is quite clear that there is a very great difference between the two systems. Personally, I do not attach anything like the importance to this particular issue that I suspect my hon. and learned Friend would like me to, but I think it would be most decent and seemly if this alteration had not been proposed. So far as intimidation is concerned, can the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General deny that the effect of the repeal of this Measure will be to weaken the law against intimidation?

The Attorney-General: Yes.

Mr. Lloyd: If my hon. and learned Friend says that the answer is that it will weaken the law against intimidation, I think that that is an extremely bad thing.

The Attorney-General: The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked me if I could deny it, and I said "Yes."

Mr. Lloyd: I do not understand how my hon. and learned Friend can consider that the repeal of this Act will strengthen the law against intimidation. In any event, in 1930, when the Labour Government of that day made what I suggest was a very much more honest attempt to amend the law on this subject, their proposals in relation to the law of intimidation involved the preservation of a great deal of what is in the 1927 Act. In regard to municipal employees, the hon. and learned Attorney-General is well qualified to speak on this subject, because I understand that the borough which he represents is one of those which refused to employ men who were not trade unionists. The effect of this change will be that the municipal authority can either coerce its employees who are not trade unionists into becoming trade unionists, or it can dismiss them. What a hullaballoo there would be if the converse were suggested. The next step may very well be that those municipal employees who are employees of a Socialist municipality will be dismissed if they are not Socialists. The next step will be a one Party State. In my submission, the saddest thing about this Government is that they, or most of them, know not what they do. The logical consequence of this type of action is to produce a totalitarian State.
With regard to civil servants, 1 would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman once more whether he wants a political Civil Service. I submit that the public are entitled to have a clear pronouncement on that point. An hon. Member on the other side talked about leprosy. He asked: Why should civil servants be regarded as suffering from leprosy in that they were not allowed to band themselves together in support of a political party? If you have organised civil servants, campaigning for one party, how can they do their work properly when the other party is in power? The logical consequence of that would be that when the Government changes, the Civil Service must change too, and that is an evil which I do not think any hon. Member, even on the other side of the House, wants. The third reason why I object to this Bill is its form. It is a type of political short-cut which I suggest is a bad precedent. How easy it would be to repeal this Bill in a precisely similar way, possibly tacking on to it the repeal of Section 4 of the Trade Disputes Act of 1906. People talk about this Act of 1927 as an endeavour to repress trade unions, and about it being vindictive. If there had been anything like that about it, how necessary it would have been to repeal Section 4 of the Trade Disputes Act of 1906 which puts the trade unions above the law in making them not liable for any of their torts. In fact there has never been a suggestion on this side of the House, nor was there in 1927, that that particular Section of the 1906 Act should be repealed.
With regard to the form of this Bill, I suggest that it is a short cut, and the Prime Minister, in the same speech to which I have referred, said that it may well be that, after a lapse of time, we would have to consider other matters in connection with the relations of these great bodies to the State. There is nothing in this Bill, and not one word has been said today, to follow up that very pertinent observation of the Prime Minister. This Bill makes no constructive contribution to the law. I believe its consequences will be a diminution of the liberty of trade unionists and non-trade unionists. It will take up Parliamentary time which can ill be spared, and in promoting sectional interests it will produce discord at a time when we do not want discord.
The present Lord Chancellor, in moving the Second Reading of the 1930 Bill, quoted from "Measure for Measure," the passage:
 Oh, it is excellent to have a giant's strength.
But it is tyrannous to use it as a giant.
That is the essence of good democratic government, the temperate and moderate use of power. Because that has been our custom in this country in the past, our democracy has been a success. This Bill which is purely an act of political revenge, stale, out of time, and wholly misconceived, is, in my submission, an abuse of power. The Government in presenting it are doing an ill-service to those democratic principles which they affect to respect.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Viant: It falls to my lot to congratulate the hon. Member for Wirrall (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) on his speech. It is an indication that we can expect in the future a real debating speech from him. We do not all agree with what he has said, of course, but, none the less, there were a number of good points in. his speech. We shall look forward to-hearing many more similar speeches on the Committee stage.
I am rather pleased this evening to have the privilege of supporting this Bill. The Attorney-General is to be congratulated on the manner in which he has introduced the Bill. Whilst he was speaking I had a vivid picture of the House in 1927, when the original Bill was introduced, ultimately to become the Act which we are keen to see removed from the Statute Book. That Bill, I have always felt, was full of vindictive spirit. It was a very different House from the present House of Commons, and the spirit of it could be in no way compared with this House. The party opposite were in a triumphant mood then; we have every right to be in a triumphant mood this evening, but I hope the party with which I am associated will at no time express such a vindictive spirit in the legislation it places upon the Statute Book.
I have heard taunts today at those who took part in what has been called a general strike. It was not a general strike in the real sense of the word; it was a sympathetic strike. Many of the general services of the country were permitted to continue. Had it been a general strike,


those services would have been shut down. Instead, behind all the activities of those who were engaged in the strike there was a general desire to do the least possible amount of harm. No one was drawn from any service which was administering to the essential needs of the community, whereas a general strike would have been spread over the whole of the industries of the country. Those who withdrew their labour on that occasion were moved more by a moral impulse and sympathy than by a spirit of revenge, and I take off my hat to those men and women who laid down their tools and left their occupations on that occasion in support of the miners who were oppressed by such abominable conditions. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) said that on the occasion when the 1927 Act. was passed numerous prophecies were made by those of us who were in the House on that occasion, but none of them have been fulfilled. Some of us are of opinion that the party which was in power on that occasion, and those of that party who are in the House at present, are very disappointed that some of the prophecies were not fulfilled. I am pleased that many of the prophecies were not fulfilled, but behind the motive of the legislation there was a desire to cripple the trade union movement in this country. However, instead of crippling it, we have seen a far different result, reflected on the benches on this side of the House tonight.
I wish the Party opposite would learn this lesson, for it is a very important one.Right through the industrial history of this country they have been seeking to put obstacles in the way of collective efforts of the trade unions— [Hon. Members: "Nonsense"]—but in every step they have taken they have been defeated. We cannot suppress the moral impulses of men and women and their desire to come together and strengthen their movement against capitalism. They are bound to combine and, as they gain strength from combination, they have other fields to conquer, and will conquer. The obstacle that was put in the way in 1927 caused men and women of the working class to think far more deeply than they had thought before, and our trade unions are stronger today, industrially and politically, and we have much cause to be grateful to those men and women who

made their extraordinary sacrifice in that lock-out in 1927.
We must bear this in mind, that the development of the trade union movement cannot be restricted by Act of Parliament. You may cramp, you may crib the activities of the movement, but it is bound to grow and develop, for this reason: The average men and women are conscious that unless they are free to withhold their labour at such time as they think necessary, they become little other than slaves, and that thought will compel them to go forward in their combined efforts to defeat whatever legislation may be placed upon the Statute Book. Personally, I think we have arrived at this stage, that since 1927—when that vindictive legislation was placed upon the Statute Book—there has been considerable education of the mass of our working people, with the result that we have had growing up in our midst far better methods of settling industrial disputes than resorting to the weapon of the strike. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) said that those who are on the Front Bench should bear those facts in mind and, with the State becoming more and more engaged in industrial activity, they should be pre- pared to bring forward a new charter for the trade unions. I would prefer the trade unions to prepare their own charter, which should be applicable to their respective industries. Otherwise, in spite of this being a Labour Government, they will feel that something is being imposed from above and they will be reluctant to accept it. Therefore, it should be developed among the trade unions themselves, and if they can produce a charter—

Lieut.-Colonel Mackeson: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is this applicable to the Bill under discussion?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I have not yet heard the hon. Gentleman say anything that was out of Order.

Mr. Viant: I should not have pursued this had it not been permitted to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery but it is a broadening out of trade union activity, and this Bill is devised for the purpose of giving trade unionists a measure of liberty and restoring to them liberties which were taken away by the Party opposite. In those circumstances, I think we are justified in discussing it.
The political levy has been discussed by a number of hon. Members. In the legislation brought forward in 1927 the whole procedure was reversed, but, after listening to many hon. Members' speeches, I am convinced that quite a number of those who have taken part in the Debate are not aware of the procedure. Before a trade union can start to collect a political levy, it has to go to the expense of summoning the whole of its members to a special meeting convened for the purpose. Then there has to be a majority of the members of the union, declaring by ballot, not by show of hands, in favour of engaging in political activities. In addition to that, the Act of 1927 compelled each of those who had already balloted in favour of political activities to fill in a form and send it to their union, declaring that they were in favour of those activities and in favour of paying the levy. The average trade unionist asks why he should be compelled to go through a double course such as that and why it is that the man who objects should not have to fill in a form stating his objection, rather than the man who has already declared in favour? The Act of 1927 covers the whole procedure that had been the modus operandi in almost every movement throughout the country.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Before the hon. Member leaves the question of the ballot, will he say whether from his experience there is machinery for renewing and revising the effect of the ballot?

Mr. Viant: Certainly, these democratic organisations where members can attend their branches and send in resolutions to their legislative body, can always ask for a fresh vote to be taken on any matter of administration. Furthermore, there are appeal committees and annual conferences—all the democratic machinery is available to the members.
I have heard a lot in the Debate about this, that, and the other thing not being legal. I have lived long enough and been in this House sufficiently long to know that it all depends upon what party is in power as to what becomes legal. We are in power and we are going to amend the law to suit our purpose. We are going to amend the law so that our members get back that liberty of which they were deprived by the Party opposite.
I know of nothing wrong in that. We are hoping that the civil servant, as a' result of the Bill, is to enjoy the same liberties as other citizens. He is going to get no licence, he will be able to enjoy the ordinary liberties of a citizen, a thing he has been denied in the past. I hope to have the privilege of seeing this Bill become an Act of Parliament to relieve the trade unionists of the country from the ignominy they have suffered as a result of the legislation of the Party opposite.

8.36 p.m.

Lieut. Colonel Bromley - Davenport: I crave the indulgence of the House for this, my maiden speech. Two of the charges against the Government are that they intend, by repealing the Trade Disputes Act of 1927, firstly to increase Socialist funds by the imposition of a political levy on nearly 3,500,000 unwilling subscribers, and, secondly, to make intimidation possible. It is my submission that the weight of evidence available proves these charges to be unanswerable.
I hope the House will bear with me if I repeat evidence, which is already well-known, but I feel that if this evidence is repeated often enough we may, at the conclusion of this Debate, receive direct answers to the charges we are putting forward in opposing this Bill. Firstly, we come to the question of the political levy.. It is not disputed that prior to the 1927 Trade Disputes Act, under the old system of contracting out, out of the 32 biggest unions only 78,000 dared to do so. After the 1927 Act, and under the system of contracting in, within one year we find that the figure of 78,000 rose to over 1,000,000. And, finally, on examining the latest figures, given in 1943, we find that the total number not contracting in had risen to 3,375,000. It is when we compare the figure of 78,000 non-contributors to Socialist Party funds in 1927, with the 3,375,000 non-contributors in 1943, that we charge the Government with the deliberate intention of increasing the income of their Party by removing the secrecy of the ballot, thus swelling their funds by the addition of over 3,300,000 unwilling subscribers. If this is not a fact, why alter the existing system of contracting in?
I understand that it is argued by some supporters of this Bill that there is no vital


difference between contracting in and contracting out. Let us take the case of a wage earner who does not wish to subscribe. Under the 1927 Act he will not ask for a contribution notice, although, most probably, he will be offered one to fill in. It is so easy for the wage earner under these conditions to take the form away to fill in later, possibly after saying that he will think it over, and then never returning it. But let us take the case of an unwilling subscriber under this 1946 Bill. He will now have to ask for the exemption notice, which will reveal to all the fact that he does not wish to subscribe. He can still take it home and think it over, but that will be no use, as he will have revealed his political beliefs.
In contracting out, there is always a danger that a man will be pilloried for his political opinions by his name being posted at the pithead or factory gate. In addition can we not see a trade union official, on being asked for an exemption form, saying something like this to the applicant, "What do you want an exemption notice for? Surely you want to back up your mates? You will let them down if you contract out. You are doing well here and you may get promoted, but I am not sure what will happen if you insist on not subscribing At all events I have not got a form by me just at the moment. Why not go away and think it over?' Under those conditions what will the unwilling subscriber do? He has to think of his wife and family. Will he insist on being given the form and filling it in there and then in front of everybody, or will he go back home, think it over, and then perhaps summon up enough courage to demand the exemption notice once again, or will he never return? It is my submission that under the present system there is no compulsion to subscribe, and no one has to reveal his political beliefs, but under this Bill the unwilling will be forced to subscribe or else reveal their political beliefs. That means destroying the secrecy of the ballot.
This brings me to intimidation. After all, no one will pay a subscription to a party they do not wish to support, unless the request for such a subscription is backed up by force or the threat of force. The Bill before the House will repeal the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, 1927, and will restore all enactments and rules thereby effected. I would like to quote Section 3, which has already been

quoted today, because I hope it will lend force to my argument later. Under Section 3 it is unlawful for one or more persons to attend at or near a wage earner's home or his business, to obtain or communicate information, or to persuade or induce any person to work or abstain from working, if they attend in such numbers or otherwise in such manner as to intimidate any such persons, or to obstruct the approach thereto or egress from such place, or to lead to a breach of the peace. Intimidation is defined as:
to cause in the mind of a person a reasonable apprehension of injury to him or to any member of his family or to any of his dependants or of violence or damage to any person or property,
The expression "injury" includes:
 injury to a person in respect of his business occupation, employment or other source of income, and includes any actionable wrong.
If this Bill is passed it will therefore become possible to intimidate, to make the wage earner fear damage to himself, his property or to members of his family. If intimidation is not intended, why repeal Section 3 of the 1927 Act?
What is the effect of repealing this Section? What will happen to the wage earner who refuses to support the Socialist Party? Take the case of a man who wishes to exercise that freedom for which our people have fought and died since the dawn of history. He wishes to exercise his right to sell his labour to whom he likes, and to work when and where he likes. Under this Bill he can be visited by 50 or too men either in his own home or where he works. These men, we are told, visit him to "advise" him or "peacefully persuade" him to work or not to work, or to do something which he does not wish to do. Everyone knows why numbers are required for this so called "peaceful persuasion." It is because they wish to obtain their object by neither peacefulness nor persuasion.
Why should, say, 20 men visit a man's home to give information or persuade? Is not one man sufficient for this purpose? I know few people more peaceful than the Lord President of the Council, but if I were a cotton operative and he were a shop steward, and he visited me in my home to persuade me to do something I did not wish to do I should have no hesitation in refusing him. If he wished to employ force to back up his


" peaceful persuasion," I should be quite prepared to continue the argument on those lines. But if he came accompanied by other shop stewards in the form, say, of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) and the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce), whilst in the rear, so to speak, was the Minister of Health, despite the fact that the latter suffered so grievously in a physical sense by going without milk in his early years, I should be much more inclined to yield to "peaceful persuasion."
Surely the same applies to the wage earner. Arguments may never persuade, but numbers can easily intimidate. There is the threat not only to the wage earner's career but to his wife and family. Do we not know of cases in which the wife has been jeered and scoffed at by her neighbours, and the children laughed at on their way to and from school? The hardest form of intimidation is to get at a man's wife and children. There are many other forms of intimidation with which I will not weary the House. But I conclude by saying this. The charges against the Government are that they intend by this Bill to swell their political funds by a political levy on over 3,000,000 unwilling subscribers. Does it not remind us of certain Socialist slogans at the recent election such as, "There are fine pickings to be had"? Secondly, that they wish to make intimidation possible and obtain their object by force, or the threat of force. I hope that these two charges will receive a satisfactory reply. I shall be surprised if they do

8.49 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: So much time has elapsed since I last addressed the House, that I feel almost as though I were making my maiden speech again. I sincerely wish I had the confidence of the previous speaker, whom I would like to congratulate, on behalf of the House, on a well informed maiden speech. I know I am speaking for the House when I say that I hope we shall hear him again. I say "well informed," although I do not agree with his deductions, and I would like to know the source of some of his information, particularly regarding the election.
On. 4th May, 1926, on the first day of the general strike, this House, by general

agreement, discussed only non-contentious matters. I do not think it is possible to do that tonight. What I propose to do is to make a few points which, 20 years afterwards, should be beyond serious dispute among reasonable people. Any fair-minded person today reviewing and recalling the events which led up to the general strike, and the miners' lock-out, must realise that that lock-out was largely provoked by the stubborn obstinacy of the mineowners. The action of the men, and the workers who came out in their support, was defensive; it was negative action. There was no question of seeking any constitutional change. Any fair-minded inquiry into the conduct of the Conservative Government culminating in the Trade Disputes Act or into the conduct of the Conservative Party culminating in their opposition to this Bill, must lead to the conclusion that the Conservative Party, broadly speaking, is against the trade unions. I do not want to suggest for a moment that the Conservative Party would seek to prohibit or out-law the trade unions. They are a constitutional party, or they were a constitutional party, when they were in power. We hope they will remain a constitutional party in defeat.
The Conservative Party went as far as they dared go without provoking another crisis, and without losing the support which they gained from some sections of the working people of this country. It is not surprising therefore that one of the first actions of a Labour Government should be to repeal the Trade Disputes Act. There is something nostalgic about the present opposition of the Conservative Party. The old order is changing, but stiff, unbending, not attuned to the changing circumstances of the day, the Conservative Party are resisting this to the last ditch. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General that this is not a matter for lawyers. This is not the time for a Debate on the complexities of trade union law; it is a straightforward political issue. Sufficient to say that the Trade Disputes Act of 1927 was a monstrous piece of slipshod, ill-conceived, and misdirected legislation. It was a desperate blunder to discuss those questions so soon after the general strike. It was disgraceful to consider them without previous consultation with the trade union leaders. It was a breach of faith for a


Conservative Government to introduce that legislation after a Conservative Prime Minister, in settling the general strike, had said that we would not countenance an attack upon the trade unions, after a Conservative Prime Minister had said it was our duty to forget all recriminations. 
The Labour Government could not hold up its head, if it did not take an early opportunity to remove this Act from the Statute Book. As far as I can see, that Act has not a single satisfactory feature. In any case, as has been pointed out repeatedly, one will not prevent a general strike by legislation. If safeguards are wanted, the only safeguards are more efficient machinery for negotiation and a constructive policy for industry. As far as I know, the Act has not made one jot of difference to the general practice of picketing. The provision compelling local and public authorities to have an open shop is quite illogical. Why should the transport workers employed by a municipality be distinguished from those employed by a private authority? The provision regarding contracting in is purely vindictive, and directed at the Labour Party.
A good deal was said about the Parliamentary Labour Party at that time but I never heard it suggested that they were responsible for the general strike. The most illogical, unfair and petty minded provision was that directed at established civil servants. It is fantastic to suggest that postmen will be demoralised and perverted from their duty by contacts with other workers. It is more than fantastic; it. is a slur upon the working people of this country. When we had the first Nazi attack from the air on this country, our fire services were nationalised. Our firemen, fighting fires in the streets of London, and other towns and cities, became, if not established civil servants, at any rate Crown servants. We even had postmen's trousers, summer issue. We were disciplined Crown servants. What horror, apparently, would have been struck in the hearts of right hon. and hon. Members opposite if they had stopped to reflect that the majority of these disciplined Crown servants carried with them an ordinary trade union card bearing upon the face of it direct evidence of their affiliation not only to the Trades Union Congress but to the Labour Party. That card, with all it represented, was substantially responsible for the high

morale of the men and women of the fire service in their trying and difficult times. Throughout the war the members of the fire service remained good trade unionists, and the fire service benefited.
I give just one example. I remember when the flying bomb attack was anticipated it was necessary to reorganise the whole of the London fire service. The chief regional fire officer, a very competent and enlightened fire chief, with the approval of the Leader of the House, did the only thing possible. He consulted the trade union officials. He discussed the question with the London committee of the union, and he and I addressed a meeting of trade union representatives. The whole scheme went through without difficulty. The fire services were built up as the front line of the defence to play their part in defeating the menace of the flying bomb. These trade union representatives, through their trade councils, through ordinary trade union negotiations, even through local Labour Parties, had had direct voluntary free association with their fellow trade unionists in London. That experience has stood them in good stead in the fire service, and it has served the fire service in good stead also.
To suggest, after that, that a postman or a civil servant should not be allowed. freely to associate with his fellow workers is crassly stupid or mischievous. I think everyone in this House must admit that Section 5 has been far from effective. We have had several Members of the House who have come direct from the Civil Service. Some have come even with the backing of Civil Service organisations. I know postmen who are also Labour councillors. In the General Election I gained the assistance of Civil Service members, admittedly under some cloak of professional secrecy. So far as I can gather, the Civil Service organisations are very politically-minded. The Union of Post Office Workers, I know, goes much further than the Labour Party. I am always receiving pamphlets advocating direct workers' control, and, so far as the Civil Service Clerical Association goes, I think the noticeable effect of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act has been the irresponsibility of its General Secretary. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) is more irresponsible and much more of an anarchist now than when


he was an active member of the Trades Union Congress.
The time-honoured Tory device of dividing people against themselves has failed to split the working people of this country. Now, in the maturity of political power, they are doing what they inevitably must do—to remove from the Statute Book this sorry and ineffective record of their betrayal by the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, 1927.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I will no: conceal from the House that I rise on this occasion with a certain feeling of diffidence and not without emotion. It is now nearly 20 years since my father introduced the Bill which is now proposed to be repealed, and one good thing, at any rate, which this Bill can do is to give me an opportunity, not often accorded to sons, to say that I am very proud of my father and very proud of his public work. But, more even than my pride in his public work, part of which it is my purpose to defend this evening, is the feeling of pride I have felt in the very-high standards of public controversy which he adopted. There arc some, but not many, in this House who can remember those Debates. I, at least, have read them, and it has been a very moving experience for me to read how, reviled again and again, in language which was not always temperate, and pursued by arguments which were not always well-informed and occasionally were even a little disingenuous, he still continued to fight for principles in which he believed, and, I believe I am right in saying, secured a reputation, even among those to whom he was politically opposed, for his sincerity, patience and single-mindedness in Debate.
I cannot hope to live up to all those traditions, but, at any rate, I should like to begin by congratulating the learned Attorney-General of these days on a full and lucid explanation of the principles of his Bill. The learned Attorney-General came down to the House with an ingratiating smile, a confident manner and a red tie—not too red, but red enough to dispel any doubts on his political orthodoxy—but it seemed to me that he laboured under a fundamental difficulty. He was bound by the terms of

his brief, and, in order to secure the need of applause from behind which he expected and deserved, he had to pronounce the ritual words of condemnation, that this was a great discriminatory act of class legislation designed and intended to cripple the trade unions.
But, being a good advocate, he had at the same time the candour to admit that since the Act had been passed, the trade union movement had flourished like a green bay tree and that it was altogether outside of his instructions to disclose the fact that that was exactly what had been intended by the framers of the Act of 1927. He found another difficulty of a forensic kind, too, because, although he was bound to come to the conclusion to which his predecessors—the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, also Sir Henry Slesser, and other lawyers of the Labour Party—had come, namely, that this was an Act which ought to be repealed, he had, at every stage, to recant and repudiate every single proposition of law which they had uttered. So he was driven, stage by stage, to claim that the repeal of this terrible, discriminatory Act was a simple little Measure—or was it a modest one?—not very fundamental to the Labour Party's programme, but still one which he could heartily commend to the House.
Having regard to his difficulties, I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman upon his performance. He was assisted, as it seemed to me, by two arguments which have become firm favourites with the Party opposite. The first is the argument that because something is found in the Labour Party election programme, it is therefore sanctified and hallowed by the mandate f the electorate. The Attorney-General referred more sonorously, and perhaps a little more pompously, to the verdict of the people. That is an argument which I should have thought was wearing a bit thin by now. [An Hon. Member: "Why? "] If the hon. Gentleman who shouted "Why" will please wait for a moment, I shall endeavour to tell him. It is, of course, quite clear that the repeal of this Act was included in the little pamphlet already referred to. It was included, but not unduly stressed so as not to make it a main issue. It was discreetly put in so that it might be referred to in what must then have been considered the remote contingency of its being needed. So what? What follows


from that? If the case for repealing this Act is a good one, and can be substantiated on its merits, it no doubt entitles hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to introduce Measures which they will support by argument in that sense. But a mandate is no substitute for argument, and it is in that sense, I am afraid, that it has been consistently used by hon. Members opposite.
It seems to me that the argument of the mandate is either superfluous or objectionable. If it be the case that there is good ground for repealing a Measure of any kind, then let the arguments be put forward. They are not much assisted by mandate argument but if the case be that the arguments are weak or utterly unsubstantial, then the argument of mandate is objectionable, because it seeks to put the document in front of the verdict of the House based on reasons which are found in debate. This is not Parliamentary democracy—it is pure Nuremberg. Some Members of this House, who from time to time have visited Germany in recent months, have unfortunately caught an infection from the people of the land. I humbly condole with the learned Attorney-General for being among the most distinguished sufferers from the Nuremberg bug.
But if the argument of a mandate is superfluous or objectionable, what have we to say about the arguments with regard to insult with which the learned Attorney-General sought to buttress his case, and which was followed by numerous moving and eloquent speeches from below the Gangway? It was said that this was an insult to the trade union movement, that their sense of injury was such that they could never bear to see the hated words on the Statute Book and, therefore, in order to gratify this sense of insult the words must be removed. But either the case for removing them is just or it is unjust. If it is just, we do not require any references to insults to support it, but if it is unjust, and if the restrictions placed upon certain acts are just, how can it be an insult to preserve them? Do husbands consider it an insult to their fidelity that they are forbidden to commit bigamy? Do the Brigade of Guards consider it an insult to their loyalty that they are forbidden to commit mutiny? This is a strange argument coming from the Attorney-General, that it is an insult to forbid that which ought not to be

allowed in any event. It is a direct attack upon the rule of law. Even the Chancellor of the Exchequer would hardly expect his new governors of the Bank of England to regard it as an insult to their integrity that they are not permitted by his regulations to walk away with the Bank of England funds.
The Attorney-General sought to support his tottering case with a further argument which does not bear much scrutiny, namely, that this was a piece of vindictive legislation inspired by hatred of the trade union movement and anger at the general strike. I think the learned Attorney-General and his faithful supporters below the Gangway rather underestimate the changes which have overcome this country during the last year. They also under-estimate the strength of the trade union movement. The Conservative Party regards the trade union movement as one of the institutions of this country which it is its business to conserve. At the same time, it does not under-estimate the power of that movement, and it considers that the relations between that movement and Parliament, and between that movement and individuals, ought to be clearly defined by law. This is not a hot house plant, shrinking from every blackleg who refuses to join the Transport and General Workers Union, terrified that the Government will coerce it, fearful and apprehensive of the verdicts of the courts. Those days are long past. It is a far cry from the Tolpuddle martyrs and all that, to the Labour Government of 1946.
We are in the presence of the most powerful corporation that has existed in this country since the Roman Catholic Church was disestablished at the time of the Reformation. Here is an organisation which claims more adherents than many members of U.N.O. have subjects. It has gigantic funds at its disposal. It has many of the organs ordinarily associated with government. It has a sort of parliament or congress of its own. It is not quite like this Parliament, because the method of voting is somewhat different. When the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary loses a division in that congress, of course, he puts all his cards on the table, face upwards. They are all aces, five in a pack, and he wins by sheer weight of the cards which are revealed from various portions of his ample person. It also has a Civil


Service of its own. it is true that it is not quite as politically impartial as the the Civil Service which has ripened under those biased and vindictive Governments of the Liberals and Tories, about which we have heard so often, the Civil Service of the State. The back benchers opposite are soon going to put an end to that my making every Civil Service appointment a job. As a Labour poster which I saw as I was on my way to the House today says, "Labour is on the job, if you want things done." As the most popular philosopher in Britain might say, "It all depends on what you mean by ' job,' and it all depends upon what you mean by ' being done.' "
Brightest of all the stars in the political firmament of the trade union movement is, of course, its association with the Labour Party. That is a party which, many years ago, no doubt, was a small group of trade union members devoted entirely to the conditions inside industry. But such is not the case today. Here we have a dominant Administration, with a huge majority, committed to controversial politics in almost every sphere of our national life. In the old days it might have been that a Liberal or Conservative trade unionist might have voted for "Old Charlie," although his views were slightly eccentric, and although his foreign policy was open to suspicion. He knew in those days that it was the fact that his union was represented in Parliament that mattered. It is not so today. It by no means follows that every docker wants to support the "Dockers' K.C." in his policy in Greece, for instance. It by no means follows that the Minister for Food will be supported by the members of his trade union on dried eggs. Whereas one could safely assume in 1913 that members of a trade union should want their representative in Parliament, notwithstanding the fact that he had no political views of importance, it might well be the case that such an assumption would be false today. I think it is an altogether unworthy slur on the trade union movement—if the learned Attorney-General will forgive me—to suppose that by 1927 that movement was still so puny and ineffective that it did not require a restatement and reconsideration of the principles upon which its relations with the State were determined.
In circumstances such as these it seems to me no more than reasonable that a Government, quite independently of the trouble of 1926. should want to define the new principles which should govern the trade unions with Parliament. It is true, of course, that the troubles of 1926 were the occasion of the legislation. That is the way in which things happened in this country and elsewhere But it is untrue, and it is a complete perversion of the truth, to suggest that the principles of the 1927 Act were in fact animated by any vindictiveness or— [Interruption]. Members opposite will not be more convincing in proportion as they are more noisy. I regard it as remarkable that the learned Attorney-General did not attempt to remind the House of the principles which, in fact, underlie this Measure. With due diffidence, I desire to supply the deficiency. Those principles are four in number: first, that a general strike should be illegal, and one should be penalised for taking part in it; second, that intimidation should be illegal, and no man shall be compelled by threats to abstain from work against his will third that no man shall be compelled to subscribe to the funds of any political party unless he so desires; and fourth, that any person entering the established Civil Service must give his undivided allegiance to the State.
Those were the principles underlying the Act of 1927. The Government have not declared themselves on one of them, but I venture to make this observation, that unless the Government condemned them all, they would not be entitled to introduce the Measure which is being brought before the House this evening. If it were said for a moment that some of the principles are all right but not others, or that the principles are all right but the performance was ineffective, then, indeed, it might be legitimate to amend the Act of 1927. It might be legitimate to substitute for it a new Act, incorporating all the skill in drafting for which the learned Attorney-General is justly famous. But it would never be justifiable to take that Act away and put absolutely nothing in its place, because not one of those four principles was the law in 1926, and not one of those principles will be the law if this Bill is passed during this Parliament.
I will deal first with the questions of the general strike. I put these questions specifically to the learned Attorney-General: in his view, ought it to be legal,


and in his view, will it be legal if this Bill is passed? I will give the House my opinion on the matter, for what it is worth, although I am conscious that I speak in the presence of the Attorney-General himself. I would venture to ask him what is the particular advantage of setting up a state of the law in which, whatever else may be true about it, one set of lawyers will maintain that the general strike is illegal, while another set of lawyers—those animated by Socialist principles— maintain that it ought to be, and is, allowed?
What is the particular advantage, at this stage of the history of our country, of setting up such a state of the law? Of course, I know that one of those Socialist lawyers has turned blackleg—that is the Attorney-General. He has now agreed, so far as I understand it, that everything Sir Henry Slesser said, and everything his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said, was legal bunkum. He thinks it is for the jury to decide, and I am bound to say that I agree with him. But what is the particular advantage of creating a state of the law in which every one who is a Socialist—except one—takes one view, while all the other lawyers, including so venerable a figure as Sir Frederick Pollock, take another? That is the situation which he has to defend if he wants to defend this Measure.
The Attorney-General's argument then went on into stranger paths still, because he went on to argue at length—indeed, I was beginning to understand why the Nuremberg trial took so long—that you cannot prevent general strikes and you cannot prevent illegal strikes. He cited the dockers' strike and other illegal strikes. Let us examine this argument a little in the light of reason. Does the Attorney-General suggest that the illegal strikes at the docks and other places should now be made legal? Is that the policy of the Government? That would be the conclusion of his argument if it had the smallest bearing on this Debate. If the learned Attorney-General's argument was relevant at all, it would be relevant only if he were bringing in legislation at this moment to make a general strike legal, but, as I understood it, he was at that Box this afternoon to say it was illegal in most of its objectionable forms. What about illegal strikes? Does he pretend for a moment that it would not

be a direct encouragement to illegal strikes if they were to be made legal? It is true that you cannot prevent all forms 0f crime by making them illegal. I have never yet heard a lawyer maintain that you reduce the quantity of crime by making it purely a matter of conscience whether you offend or not. There is a law of treason in this country. Most unfortunately that law of treason did not, in a recent emergency, prevent certain traitors from committing treason. The learned Attorney-General was, quite rightly, not slow in prosecuting those who offended. There are objections to making war illegal in international courts, but the learned Attorney-General has been a prosecutor in those courts; and most of us in this House agree that the rule of law demands that where an act ought to be condemned it ought to be condemned by law as well as by fact.
The Attorney-General was, I think, a little less than frank with the House when he failed to admit to the House that though it is true that a criminal prosecution does not necessarily prevent a general strike, it was also true that the Act of 1927 provided machinery which stopped short of criminal prosecution but let you attach the funds of trade unions. I thought that he was, perhaps, rather less than frank in not telling the House of that. But what are we to make of the difference between his argument in the House today and the statement of Sir Walter Citrine to the Labour Press Service, when he said quite plainly, that he regarded it as important that a brake was necessary on a general strike—although Sir Walter Citrine did not explain whether he meant by "brake" stopping a strike or something to slow it down. Sir Walter said that a "brake should not be a legislative brake." What is the Attorney-General's view on that? Is it the view of the learned Attorney-General that "the restraint and brake is to be found in the trade union movement and in its own responsibilities that devolve upon it?" If that is his view why does he not, instead of bringing in a Bill like this, bring in a Bill in which Clause I legalises a general strike and enacts what Sir Walter Citrine said. He does not do it because it does not match with public opinion. We on this side of the House are not mistaken in claiming that Sir Walter Citrine's attitude on this matter is nothing short of a reiteration of the claims made in 1926, that a general strike of this kind


which cannot fail, whatever its merits, to inflict untold harm on the community, should be a matter for the great corporation of which I have spoken and should be withdrawn from the purview of Parliament and the Government.
I turn to the question of intimidation. The Attorney-General claimed that intimidation is and always has been illegal. I venture to dispute that. It is true that the word "intimidation" is forbidden by the Conspiracy Act, 1875; but what he did not explain was that the courts so construe that word as to exclude most of the refinements of mental torture, for instance, intimidation which stops short of actual physical violence. What I wish to ask the learned Attorney-General, and what I hoped he would explain in his Second Reading speech, is: What is the particular advantage in creating a state of the law in which you forbid physical intimidation but the more subtle refinements of intimidation are still alive? What is the advantage of creating a state of the law in which there is some doubt as to what is intimidation and what is not?
The learned Attorney-General asked us to believe that intimidation was a thing that did not take place in this country. That is not so. I would be the first to admit that the great glory even of our disputes has been, on the whole, the orderly way in which we have carried them out. But nothing will alter the fact that under the law, which the Attorney-General is now restoring, between 6,000 and 7,000 successful prosecutions for intimidation were undertaken in 1926. What is the advantage from the point of view of the party opposite in restoring the state of the law where that can take place? It took place for this reason: Because people were under the mistaken impression that the Trades Union Act of 1906 had legalised these acts in trade disputes. It seems an extraordinary state of affairs that the learned Attorney-General should seek now to restore the old period of confusion.
It seems to me that the Government are here in something of a dilemma. Either they accept the principle that all contributions to a political party should be purely voluntary, or they reject it. If they accept the principle that they are voluntary—and surely it will not be denied that they are—how is it going to make a difference to their funds if they pass this legislation? It it does make a difference

to their funds, as it will, how can they reconcile that with the principle? The Attorney-General had several shots to justify this extraordinary piece of legislation. The first was that it was only a little one—" A farthing a week," he said, with a sneer. That it was only a little one is a classical excuse for something which can no longer be concealed, but it has not generally been held sufficient to explain away one's shortcomings or their consequences. If what was proposed was a whacking big subscription, no one would mind very much, because no-one would pay it. They would all contract out. But he thinks that he can get away with a little one, and that people will not mind being involved in an expenditure of a farthing a week. That is not a very respectable argument for a learned Attorney-General, one of whose tasks it is to prosecute crimes of dishonesty.
He next used the argument that there was not a rag of evidence that there had been any compulsion. He misunderstood the nature of the case against him. Our case is not that the great bulk of trade unions stood over their members with a knobkerry, if they contracted out. Our case is that contracting out is, itself, a form of compulsion and, therefore, objectionable. The learned Attorney-General seemed to me to admit the fact in certain other passages of his speech on this topic. He said that the minority have to toe the line. He also said that if the minority were as big as we pretend, then it would be big enough to proclaim its intention to contract out. Suppose the minority was not very big; what difference does that make? The learned Attorney-General seems to think that the smaller the minority the less' it matters. That is not the view we take on this side of the House.
In this instance also I am bound to say that the learned Attorney-General seems to have been infected with the virus of Nuremberg and to have come out with swastika spots all over his red tie. [Hon. Members: "Withdraw."] Mr. Speaker, if you wish me to withdraw anything that I have said, I shall always withdraw it, but I shall take my orders from the Chair. We see something indecent in the political spectacle of a party which relies mainly for its own election expenses and salaries upon a political fund which the members are being driven through the Lobbies by the Government Whips to


secure, and for which the highest praise which the greatest legal authority in the land can bestow is that he relies upon the forces of inertia to secure the farthings of those who cannot be bothered to contract out of paying them. If hon. Members opposite were members of a local authority they would be committing a serious offence by doing this. It is only because nobody has ever thought of anything so abominable being done in Parliament it has not already been legislated against.
There is much else that I could say— [Interruption.]—and if I get much more interruption I shall say it all. [Hon. Members: "Intimidation."] I hope to take the opportunity in the next two minutes of making one or two points before giving the Minister of Labour the chance of answering some of the serious charges which have been made against his party. I can assure him that we will not interrupt him to the extent which it is the practice of the party opposite to interrupt us on this side of the House. I would say that this is a reactionary Measure in the worst sense of the term. It proposes to take away a piece of legislation and to put nothing whatever in its place. 1 should have thought that even the party opposite would have the sense to realise that they are creating a dangerous precedent, or at least have the sense of humour to appreciate that "back to 1913 "is hardly an exciting slogan for the party of the working classes and progress.
Viewed seriously, which I do not wholly do, the Bill can only be regarded as an attempt if not actually to legalise the general strike at least to make it uncertain whether it is legal or not; and to take away certain of the legal provisions which prevent it; to legalise certain unpleasant forms of intimidation; to permit the party opposite to grow fat on funds which they think are individually too small to excite really vigorous agitation against them; and to allow the Civil Service to associate with one of the two great parties of the State to the detriment of the State. That is the meaning of the Bill if it were treated seriously, but we do not suggest that it is animated by any sinister motive of that kind. It is merely a piece of childish political tit-for-tat. It is animated by no constructive motive and it is inspired by no coherent outlook.
It is an act done out of mere irresponsibility at a moment of crisis in our national and international history. I gladly acquit the party opposite of criminal conspiracy against the State, but their introduction of this Measure at this time is a devastating comment on the fitness of the Labour Party to govern.

9.41 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) is, I say quite honestly, entitled to the cheers of his supporters. He has certainly delivered a brilliant speech, although what it has to do with the subject under discussion I have yet to find out. It was a first class piece of debating, combined with reminiscences of Gillie Potter of Hogsnorton. There was, in his opening words, a reference which, I think, touched the whole House, namely, his references to the share which his father took in the passing of the 1927 Act. Earlier in the day I saw the hon. Gentleman's father in the Gallery, and I say sincerely that I wish he had been here. to hear the defence which his son has put up on behalf of his father. I am sure we were all glad to hear a son ex press appreciation of his father's courage and opinion. May I, with all humility, take the same line, and say how proud I am that my father taught me, as a boy, to be a trade unionist when I grew up, and to put my trade unionism above all else—

Major Lloyd: Would the right hon. Gentleman repeat that, so that the whole of the Press may hear it?

Mr. Isaacs: My trade union conduct is well known to the Press. I have served too many years for them to have any doubt about that. Those of us who learned our trade unionism in a hard school realise that this is not, as the hon. Member for Oxford said, a childish piece of tit for tat. If it was childish tit 20 years ago, it certainly is childish tat now, but we do not look upon it in that light today. The hon. Member for Oxford— or should I have said, the right hon. Member, because judging by the speech he has made tonight he is obviously working his passage back to the Front Bench—made a good deal of play about contracting in and contracting out. We


had a wonderful experience of that during the last Election. There was a lot of talk about the business vote. Some of us objected to a business man having two votes. In my constituency, 3,000 names were put on the register because of this vote. What happened? Less than 200 out of that number contracted in. All they had to do was to fill in a piece of paper, and hand it in. Do Members opposite want it both ways? How many business voters in the City of London took the trouble to contract in?

Mr. Eden: That was their fault.

Mr. Isaacs: What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The hon. Member for Oxford made a reference to which we took some objection. I did not quite catch the phrase which brought shouts of "Withdraw" from this side of the House, but I did catch one phrase which I think, on recollection, he will consider was not worthy of him. The hon. Member said that it was indecent that Members on this side of the House should rely on political funds for the salaries they draw—

Mr. Hogg: I know the right hon. Gentleman will not misquote me. What I said, or intended to say, was that it was indecent to seek to swell that fund by instituting a system of contracting out.

Mr. Isaacs: Possibly in the heat of the moment the hon. Gentleman may not have said what he meant. I thought he said that we relied for our salaries on those funds. I can say that none of us draws a salary from those political funds. Those political funds pay for the loss of wages incurred by thousands of men and women who serve the country on local authorities, and we want to continue giving those people our support.

Mr. Challen: Are the political funds directed to that?

Mr. Isaacs: If the hon. Gentleman had been in the House during the afternoon, he would have heard more than one of his hon. Friends refer to the balance sheets published by the Labour Party and the Trades Union Congress. Perhaps he will read them and find out, and perhaps at the same time he will give us an opportunity of looking at the Tory balance sheet. The hon. Member for

Oxford referred to an illegal strike. Only fools step in where lawyers fear to tread; I am not a fool and I shall not step in where lawyers fear to tread, particularly when there is no agreement among them. I hope other legal Members will answer those legal questions later. There is only one thing I want to mention. The hon. Member said that there would not be mass prosecutions in an illegal strike, but that the funds of the trade union would be attached. If a trade union were opposed to an illegal strike and the strikers went on strike in spite of the wishes of the trade unions, I wonder what funds would be attached then. The trade union funds could not be attached. There is another point that has been made once or twice during the Debate, especially by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Clement Davies), who said that if there exist circumstances that cause an urge among the workers to strike or take similar action, all the laws in the world will not prevent them from doing so. At the present time, I understand the police authorities throughout the country are appealing to everybody who has weapons of any kind, to give them up, not because the police are afraid that those who have them now might use them, but because they are afraid that more unscrupulous persons might get hold of them. It is for the same reason that we want this Act off the Statute Book; it is because some people might be even more unscrupulous than the party opposite have been in past years. I wish to draw attention to some words that were used by a former Member of the House, the right hon. J. R. Clynes, in the Second Reading Debate on the 1927 Act. He said:
 The Government have chosen to begin a fight, the end of which will not be seen when this Bill has been placed upon the Statute Book... It will be the duty of the Opposition "—
at that time the Labour Party—
later, when in the natural order of things it becomes a Government "—
that has come about—
no matter in what form this Bill may pass, to repeal that Act, and we make that declaration now."— [Official Report, 2nd May, 1927: Vol. 205, c. 1337–40.]
I make the declaration now that we are carrying out the declaration made then. One hon. Member asked, What is the Government's attitude towards strikes? I can sum it up very briefly. The Government have no opposition to the ordinary


strike, the Government believe in the genuine sympathetic strike, but they do not believe in strikes to coerce the Government, this Government or any other Government.

Mr. Eden: Why will they not put that in the Bill?

Mr. Isaacs: Because we prefer to act in the way we have chosen—to repeal the Act. We are responsible for the Measures we bring before the House, and therefore, I think we must be allowed to choose our methods. During the war, as mentioned by hon. Gentlemen earlier, there has been evidence of the growth of good relations and good understanding between workers and employers. I speak not merely as one with a very short experience at the Ministry of Labour, but as one with a long experience in trade union activity, and I speak with all sincerity. In the main, the vast bulk of the employers of this country accept and recognise trade unionism and are prepared to co-operate and work with trade unions. The men who are not, are as much a danger to the employers as are the non-unionists to us. Therefore, to that extent, we are protecting them. We appreciate that co-operation, and nothing that we do and nothing in this Bill will prevent that co-operation going on. But behind it all there is a very important factor.
We believe in conciliation. I have taken part in conciliation for many years. We believe in negotiation and in attempting to settle a matter without dispute. No trade union official I have ever known ever wanted a strike. More potential strikes have been settled than have actually occurred, and sometimes we have got into bad blood with our own members because of stopping a strike rather than with the employers. It has not always been easy to keep the thing moving, but no conciliation, arbitration or similar procedure will be of avail in the long run if there is no power to strike, and if there is dissatisfaction [An Hon. Member: "And lockouts."] Yes, and lockouts. If employers are asking the workers to accept something which the employers think they ought to accept-, and they believe in their case, they will threaten a lockout, just as in another case the workers will threaten a strike. But if that ultimate power is taken away, and the workers

are left at the whim of anybody who gives an order which must be carried out, it will not do much good even though it might be given legal effect. Unwilling workers in a job, not getting wages or conditions which they think they ought to get, never give the value they ought to give. A contented workman is the most important thing.
I hope, later, to come back to this question of relations. In the meantime, I would refer to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). I think the speech with which he opened the case for the Opposition was a good tempered one. There was no spleen or bitterness about it, although, towards the end, he certainly put a few questions a little brutally. I will deal with that in a moment. He asked one or two questions which I think should be answered. He referred to local authorities compelling their staffs to join a specified union. If a local authority get the power of saying they desire their workers to belong to a trade union, it is only sense that they should be able to say which unions they should join. [Hon. Members: "Why? "1 Wait a minute and I will tell you. I have been a member of a local authority for a great number of years. We often found some little mushroom organisation growing up, because half a dozen people were not satisfied with the activities of their union. It is right that local authorities should, just like large employers, want to have peace and understanding and good relationship in their offices and should say to their employees, "We want you to join a union." That is the position in the Cooperative Wholesale Society and in the offices of the great London newspapers. Every one employed by the London newspapers is expected to belong to the recognised trade union.
May I digress for a moment to say that we hear a good deal about practising what you preach? If our London newspapers were to preach in their papers the good understanding which they practise in their offices, there would be a better spirit in this country, and a better understanding of trade unionism. It is only right that a tribute should be paid to them. There is some reason why staffs should be told that a particular union is the proper union in certain circumstances. In the main it works. On the other hand


it is often the unions which say "So and so should join a union and this is the union he should join." This power prohibits the local authority from saying to their staff that they must all join a union, but it does not prohibit the vast majority coming forward to say that they will not work with someone who is not a trade unionist and facing the local authority with that decision.
The right hon. Gentleman the acting Leader of the Opposition said towards the end of his speech that the bringing forward of this Bill was activated by the narrowest party ends. My mind went back to 1927 and I say that the spirit which he suggests exists now, was the spirit obviously manifest then. There is not the slightest doubt that it was the narrowest party end which was considered at that time. The right hon. Gentleman also made a statement which filled me with alarm. I do not know a great deal about grammar, or the use of phrases and words, but I can just imagine a shudder running down the. back of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) when the right hon. Gentleman made use of this sentence, "We gave the trade unions the right to strike.'' Unions do not strike. The right hon. Gentleman will be corrected in the morning. Somebody will write to him telling him that it is the members of a trade union who strike. I am just warning him. "We gave the trade unions the right to strike." Who did? Who gave us the right to breathe? The right to strike is as much our own inalienable right, as the right to breathe. Nobody gives us the right to strike. It is the right of anybody to refuse to work. Incidentally, I remember when the right hon. Gentleman himself went on strike. What is more, I remember one of his colleagues joining in a sympathetic strike with him—and they had a vast volume of support from the country in respect of that sympathetic strike. The right hon. Gentleman took up an attitude which is to his credit. But was that not a strike to coerce the Government? [HON.MEMBERS: "Yes."]
I turn now to some other matters. I understand that it is not quite the proper thing to criticise maiden speeches, but the hon. Gentleman who represents

Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) made use of a sentence that just staggered me. He referred to my hon. Friends who have stated that they took part in the general strike in 1926 and have no regrets for it, and he said, with some little spirit of annoyance, that there was no penitence or shame on this side of the House. Of course not. I went all through that strike, and I believe it was the finest example of one man showing sympathy for and comforting another that we have ever seen. I happened to be, at the time, the leader of a printing trade union, and I assert, without any hesitation, that it was never in the minds of any one of us that it was an action that challenged the power of the Government. [Interruption.] I am telling hon. Members what was in our minds; they need not believe it. Right hon. and learned Gentlemen have already heard, that it was the most orderly piece of organisation ever. As a matter of fact in the area in which I was stationed, we had one policeman in the whole district looking after things because we maintained the peace ourselves.

Mr. Eden: I am reluctant to interrupt, but the right hon. Gentleman has just given an account of the purposes of the general strike. I do not know what authority he attaches to what Mr. Cramp says but here is a sentence of his statement:
 In order that the general strike might be successful it was necessary to enforce the resignation of the Government.

Mr. Isaacs: I cannot be answerable for what everybody says. I was talking about the rank and file with whom I was associated. Those people still believe in what they did. They believed it then, and they believe it now, and what they did was merely in order to show sympathy to their fellows. This much can be said, and I say it at the risk of misrepresentation even from my own friends, that experience has taught us that general strikes are silly things. The strike was never meant to coerce the Government. But it was not the sensible way to go about things. You cannot settle a dispute by punching a fellow on the nose and talking about it afterwards. The best way is to talk about it first, and then get it settled. After all is said and done, the history of the workers' movement has been a long history of struggle against bad conditions and adversity. The word "striker" is


not a name for something objectionable; it is merely the term used to describe a man exercising his rights to refuse to work. If a man has not the right to strike, he will be a serf. If I had the time, I would tell my own experience of the growth of trade unionism in the industry with which I am associated. In 1901, we had to work over 70 hours to earn£1 a week, and 36 of those 70 hours were worked straight off. We never heard any employer say, "You are working too long." It was only when we got the union organised, and struck against that system, that we get a settlement. But I am happy to say that, having gone through that time by showing that we are quite willing to fight, we have got to the point where we can settle matters by discussion and understanding.
That brings me to the point about legislative action. Why do we want a political fund? We want it not simply to push the particular case of our own movement—though if we wished to do that, why should we not? We want a political fund to do the things which can best be done by Parliament. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot have it both ways. They cannot say, "You must not have a strike if things do not go right and you must not have political action." During the years in which I have known anything about this job, we have gradually edged away from the industrial strike into the political field. It may be asked "What have we got by it?" We have got a lot. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite have a tender heart for the fellow who will not pay his contribution. Remember, he gets all that we got for ourselves. Legislation was required to get workmen's compensation, and I say at once that we did not get all this from one political party. A great deal of the social amelioration we have got has come from the Conservative Party, as from the other Parties, but it only came when we had a few on these benches to drive home our case—workmen's compensation, safety and welfare legislation, trade boards for the sweated undertakings. Do hon. Members remember the cases of "phossy jaw" in the East end of London? I had an aunt who made match-boxes in her own home, slaving for 16 hours a day for which she received 10s. a week. It is for things like these we wanted legislation and to protect our

young persons, and to provide for unemployment and sickness benefit.
There is still much to be done. We have mining legislation only by Act of Parliament; the workman's right to inspection in the mines; the checkweighmen. Fancy having to go to Parliament to get power to watch someone, to see that the boss is not cheating. I cannot speak from my own experience but some may remember the fight for the Plimsoll line on the ships. Men went down to the sea in coffins, not in ships, until Parliament gave them the Plimsoll line. Recently there has been the necessity for the safety belt for window cleaners. Even those little things require legislation. We want that legislation and, when we get these laws of protection, they protect the non-unionists as well as the unionists. Today, new industries, new processes, bring new diseases, and therefore we want more legislation now than in the past to take care of those industrial diseases, not only to give us compensation but also to give us proper opportunities for the medical profession to be properly trained in those special diseases.
There is no need for me to dilate very much on the question of the sympathetic strike because I think that where it is a genuine sympathetic strike there is no real opposition to it, but it is very difficult to see where a sympathetic strike should begin and end. Let me tell the House of something which is happening today in the hotels in the West End of London. At the very suggestion of having a trade union ticket, men are out on their necks before they know where they are. Yes, in places where the highest possible prices are charged, where employees work unreasonably long hours, 60, 70 or 80 hours a week for from 10s. to 30s. wages, making these up with what money they can cadge from other people; in this industry which this House has decided by passing the Catering Wages Act should be tackled. A few weeks ago a girl cashier in one of these hotels was discovered to be a steward of her union collecting contributions. They sacked her late at night, and when she protested and said she had nowhere to go— she happened to be a girl from Ireland—she was threatened that the police would be brought in unless she got out. I can certify this case for I have investigated it. The explanation was given that they had


to sack her to make way for another one of their girls who was coming back from the Services. Ultimately, another girl came and took her job but she came from another hotel and had never been in the Services and had never been a cashier before.
One hon. Member referred to the spirit of Tolpuddle. Here is another case of a hall porter in a hotel, an ex-Serviceman after the last war, 15 years in their service, and then he was caught speaking to the chambermaid because they were discussing joining a union

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: May I intervene? Will the right hon. Gentleman give the name of the hotel?

Mr. Isaacs: Certainly not.

Sir J. Lucas: Why not? They ought to be pilloried.

Mr. Isaacs: Let me make my case.

Mr. McKie: On a point of Order—

Mr. Isaacs: No.

Mr. McKie: May I ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if the right hon. Gentleman can make accusations?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As so many Members of the Socialist Government are giving large entertainments in luxury hotels.

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Isaacs: Unless they put matters right I will communicate with those hotels and take this up.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: Mr. C. S. Taylor (Eastbourne) rose—

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has not given way.

Mr. Isaacs: I will give another case and I will give the name in this one. I shall not budge from what I have said. What we want to do is to get a settlement with those hotels and not show them up. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] And when I say "we," I mean the union concerned. If they do not get it, they will be shown up. Let the House listen to this. Here is a form which was in use and which people

were asked to fill up by one of our West End hotels when they applied there for a job. They gave their name, address, classification and so on and then there is this statement:
 You are called upon to pay to the management to defray cost of agreement stamp. In the event of your dismissal, this amount will be refunded to you, but in the event of your resignation the money will be forfeit to the management.
Something has been said about the spirit of Tolpuddle. I want to say that the spirit of this vexatious opposition and intimidation by employers exists today. I will quote further:
 I hereby declare that 1 am not a member of any workers' Union that has any connection with hotels or restaurant business, and I promise not to become a member of any such Union without first notifying my employers.

Earl Winterton: Who signed the letter?

Mr. Isaacs: It goes on:
 I, the undersigned, hereby agree to enter the employment of Oddenino's Motel and Restaurant Ltd., and should I be absent from business through sickness or any other cause it is distinctly understood and agreed that I am not entitled to any salary during the period 0f such absence. All employees are liable to be searched on leaving the premises.
Oddenino's odds and evens. Odds I win and tails you lose. Those are the conditions.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Can you advise us as we do not understand what part of the Bill this deals with?

Mr. Isaacs: It is quite obvious that these vital points show that there are organisations of employers banded together in their own organisations, acting in conspiracy to prevent their workers joining trade unions.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Mr. R. A. Butler(Saffron Walden)  rose—

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has not given way.

Mr. Butler: I was rising on a point of Order. If the repeal of the Trade Disputes Act has something to do with employers and the unions which serve them, I would consider the right hon. Gentleman was in Order. I do not know whether this Bill which the Government have introduced, has anything to do with that


particular aspect. However sympathetic we may be with the Minister—

Hon. Members: Speech.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is indulging in argument.

Mr. Isaacs: I have a moment or two left and there are many more cases of this kind which 1 would like to mention. I first want to say this about these poor non-unionists, these fellows who are said to have a conscientious objection to belonging to a trade union. The only conscientious objection I have ever known them to have is to paying to a trade union. This country will be better if we remove from the Statute Book this obnoxious Act. For years at every Labour Party Conference and at every Trades Union Congress there has been a notice of motion demanding its removal. It is our intention to remove it.

Ordered: "That the Debate be now adjourned."— [Mr. Mathers.]

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — GOODS AND SERVICES (PRICE CONTROL)

10.14 p.m.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: I beg to move,
 That the Order, dated 6th December, 1945, entitled the Women's and Maids' Outerwear (Manufacturers' Maximum Prices) Order, 1945 (S.R.&amp; O., 1945, No. 1530), a copy of which was presented on 18th December, be annulled.
The reason that: my hon. Friends and 1 are drawing the attention of the House to this Order is because the Select Committee appointed by the House to consider Statutory Rules and Orders made the comment on 5th February, 1946, that they
 are of the opinion that the special attention of the House should be drawn to them on the ground that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the laying of them before Parliament.
I would like to ask for guidance on this if 1 am wrong, but I believe that a Statutory Rule and Order has the force of an Act of Parliament immediately after that Order has been signed by the Minister or his representative. There may be a period of time between the signing of an Order by the Minister or his representative and the time when it is laid on the Table of this House. During that time the Order

has the force of an Act of Parliament. It means that proceedings under the Order can be taken against persons contravening it, although the persons who are contravening the Order know nothing about the existence of any such Order.
Obviously, it is desirable that the time between the signing of an Order by the Minister or his representative and the time of publication should be reduced to a minimum. I would refer hon. Members to the second Special Report from the Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders, which is a White Paper and can be obtained from the Vote Office. It is dated nth December, 1945. In that White Paper the Committee make the following observations:
 They have been impressed by the diversity of the periods elapsing between the making of rules and orders and their publication and presentation to Parliament. Having sought information as to the time actually taken in publishing—i.e. the time from the receipt of the document by the King's Printer (His Majesty's Stationery Office) to the moment of publication—they are given to understand that:—
(a) a four-page document normally takes three days and a twenty-four-page document seven days; 
The Order we are discussing took 12 days from the time it was signed to the time it was laid before Parliament. This particular Order runs into five pages, and the suggestion of the Select Commitee is that an Order having four pages should take three days between the time of its signing by the Minister and its presentation to Parliament. Curiously enough, I have here another Order, No. 149 of 1946. It is one of 46 pages, a very long Order; it is almost a book. This Order—I imagine the Ministry of Supply is efficient in these matters—was signed on 28th January and laid in the House on 1st February, a period of some three or four days. That is not, however, the Order that we are discussing at the moment.

Major Guy Lloyd: For the guidance of those who, obviously have not got the Orders, may I suggest that my hon. Friend would be helpful if he read both Orders in full?

Mr. Taylor: I would almost like to do that, but I will not do it because I do not want to delay the House for too long. This is an extremely important matter, because hon. Members must realise that these Orders have the force of law, and


there may be a time when an Order is signed by a Minister and it is not published for the world or even published for the benefit of this honourable House of Commons. Proceedings may be taken against an individual who knows nothing about the Order, even though the House of Commons knows nothing about it either. [Interruption.] I heard an hon. Member say that the same applied to any Act but the ordinary law—the ordinary Act of Parliament—as the hon. Member will soon know, has to go through various stages of Debate in this House before it becomes an Act of Parliament. These Orders have the force of an Act of Parliament without any Debate in this House, unless some hon. Member like myself, who has taken the trouble to look at these Orders, has the courage to raise a Prayer and ask why such an Order is being made and the reasons for it.
In their recommendations the Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders say:
 A four-page document normally takes three days "—
This is what they understand from evidence given by the Departments—
and a 24-page document takes seven days.
That is, between the signing of the Order and its presentation to Parliament. They go on:
… this period of seven days is reduced to five days if the document is set up in type in advance of signature.
I will come back to that in a few moments. The next thing they understand from the evidence of the Departments is:
 Departments often indicate to His Majesty's Stationery Office the date on which they desire the documents to be available (this being sometimes a date subsequent to the operation of the document).
The fourth thing they understand from the evidence of the Departments is that:
 H.M. Stationery Office endeavour to comply with the wishes of departments in this respect and, in any case of urgency, make special efforts to expedite publication.
The Select Committee of this House recommend that these periods between signing and publication should be shortened. I will now turn to the explanation of the Board of Trade why there was delay in this particular Order. They say this:

 It has been the practice in the case of such Orders that the President should sign the Order in typescript and that it should subsequently be sent to the Stationery Office and go through all the various stages of printing and publishing. In those circumstances the period between signature and publication would, without delay at any stage, be between 10 and 12 days.
This, in spite of the fact that here I have a 46-page Order that took three days. It would be between 10 and 12 days, depending upon the number of pages in the Order.
Since the making of these Orders, the Select Committee, in its Second Report, recommended that the period should be shortened and that the practice of having Rules and Orders set up in type in advance should be extended. Arrangements have now been made for these Orders to be set up in type in advance and so the period generally should be reduced to seven days. But why seven days? It is a long time. During the period between signature and publication, there may be all sorts of steps taken against people who have broken the law and yet have never seen the Order. I would like to suggest two ways in which the time could be cut down.
I suggest that Ministries must have some idea that, at some future date, an Order will be necessary dealing with a particular matter, and there is no reason why they should not get it out in draft, and no reason why they should not get the Minister's approval to that draft Order. Having got that, they could then go ahead with the printing of the final Order and the Minister could sign it on the day when it was laid before Parliament. The second way in which time could be saved would be if the Department concerned would look ahead and find out if an Order was necessary and then save time by cutting down delay and getting the Order set up in type before signature, so that, directly the Minister concerned signed it, copies could be run off and it could be published to the House and the country.
I am afraid that this is a technical matter, but I urge hon. Members to realise that these Statutory Rules and Orders have the force of an Act of Parliament, and that there may be a time when, between the signature of the Minister being appended to an Order and the time when that Order is published to


the country, action may be taken against people who contravene the Order. It is very important from the public point of view. In view of the thousands of Orders being turned out by Government Departments in these days, I feel that is is up to all of us to see that the country has a fair and square deal in this matter and that unjustifiable delay should be eliminated.

10.29 P.m.

Lord William Scott (Roxburgh and Selkirk): I beg to second the Motion.
Since we put down Prayers against certain of these Rules and Orders, a White Paper has been produced which has given the reason why certain Departments and Ministries were rather slow in producing these Orders on the Table of the House, and it gives reasonably satisfactory reasons for the delay. At the same time, we think that the reasons which may have been good enough during December and January would be insufficient to justify any delays in the future. We are raising this question in order to get the Ministers concerned to give their reasons, which, no doubt, will be very similar to those in the White Paper which was placed in the Vote Office this morning.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I understand that all these objections are on the same ground, and, if it is the wish of the House, the discussions can proceed on them all after the first has been moved, the rest being merely put formally.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. We would be quite agreeable not to move separately on the Board of Trade Orders if the first explanation is satisfactory, but we feel that there are differences between the reasons given in the White Paper, that is, between the Board of Trade and the other Ministries. If it would be for the convenience of the House, we would be willing to have an explanation from the representative of the Board of Trade here tonight, but we shall certainly require explanations from the representatives of the other Ministries, and we intend, in spite of the explanations, to move the last Motion on the Paper— Emergency Powers (Defence) Factories.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I wish to make the matter clear. I intended to say that the

Board of Trade Orders could be taken together for discussion after the first Motion had been formally moved.

Mr. Taylor: I wish to make it perfectly clear that we on this side of the House-agree if the first explanation is satisfactory.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I wished to make one observation with regard to the first Order which is under discussion at present. I am bound to say-that, as a member of the Scrutiny Committee, it would not be for me to condone-any delay, bu0t I think it ought to be pointed out to the House in the case of this particular Order that there could be no possibility of anyone being prejudiced, because the Order which was in fact made on 6th December, and laid before the House on 18th December, provides, in terms, that it "shall not come into operation until 1st January, 1946."

Sir John Mellor: On a point of Order. I would like to say that I wish to move the Motion relating to the third Order standing in my name separately, although it covers the same point, because I understand that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Aberdeen (Major Spence) has a point of substance on the merits of the Order which he wishes to raise on the third Motion. I respectfully ask for permission to move separately on this isuse.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As I have already indicated we can discuss these Orders. together.

10.35 P-m.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: On the particular point that was raised by the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher), I would ask him to remember that it is the duty of this House, as I see it, apart from any merits or demerits within any Order, to see to it that the private citizen in this country is protected against some form of law being introduced about which he is unaware. It has been suggested by the hon. Member that, after all, there was a considerable-margin of time, and that the Order provided that its effect should not be brought in until 1st January. Let him tell the House again—if I may invite him to do so, in case I have got the date wrong— exactly what the dates were which applied


to this Order. Did they, or did they not, cover a most difficult period of trading in this country round about Christmas and the New Year, a time when people were fully engaged in trade, and when they could have very little time to devote themselves to the examination of the details of these Orders, when, in fact, it would be the best possible time to slip something of this sort through without anyone noticing it at all? I do not care on which side of the House we sit, it really is our duty to see to it that the people of this country do not suffer from our own carelessness, or from the carelessness, maybe—and I am not going to throw any pieces of mud, or boots, or bricks or anything else at the Front Bench opposite—of Ministers or their Departments. We must protect the people, and unless they know we are protecting them, we are not doing our job, and the whole prestige of Parliament falls.
I was very sorry indeed to hear the argument used by the hon. Member opposite. It was not a question of attempting to put up an excuse. It did seem to me to be exactly that sort of inhuman departmental argument which can be put forward on departmental broadsheet lines and which in fact, has no value whatever for the poor overburdened man trying to carry on business, who may suffer by something being pushed through while he is in complete ignorance owing to the burdens of his trade. We have to take these matters seriously. It may be that in this new House of Commons Members on both sides have got out of the practice of examining these things meticulously. These things are not done to make difficulties in the machinery of Parliament: they are done very definitely for one purpose, and one purpose alone, in order to maintain— [HON.MEMBERS: "To waste time."]—Let us pick up some more of these remarks from the opposite side of the House. They are scandalous. They are actually undermining the whole value of the Parliamentary system. If we are to consider these matters in that sort of spirit, hon. Members opposite will get a very rude lesson when the time comes. They will be taught in harsh terms what the people of this country think of them, because they do not protect the interests of the private citizen of this country. If we are to consider these things, we must, as far as possible, try to get out of our

minds the question of which side of the House we sit on. We have to consider this matter as a Parliament. There is no contentious political or Party matter in this Order.
What we here are striving after is that Parliament can do its duty, and whether, in fact, we can do our duty if we do not draw to the attention of the House to cases of this sort. I feel this matter very acutely indeed. I have seen small, innocent men suffer from the effects of this sort of thing, and it is our duty to draw their attention to the law. Some rule or regulation should be published in order that there should be sufficient time for the information to be known.

Mr. Challen: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, my name is down to move the next Motion, which is also concerned with the Board of Trade, but I do not know if your Ruling is that all these matters should be dealt with as one Motion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am in the hands of the House, but I understood that objection was taken to the suggestion I made.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Gaitskell: However admirable the sentiments of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) may be, his case would have been strengthened if he had had the Order in front of him. The Order in question imposes ceiling prices for women's and men's outerwear, and the announcement was made about the end of November, if not earlier.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: What the Minister intends to do in this House is of no value whatever in law. Everybody on the Government Front Bench will agree.

Mr. Gaitskell: I thought I heard a reference to "slipping this one across." One can hardly describe as "slipping across" something of which details have already been given. In point of fact, the prices of women's outerwear were discussed months before, and the majority of the trade knew of these even before they were published in November. In this case 13 days elapsed between the laying of the Order on the Table and the sale of goods to a wholesaler or retailer. If the hon. Member will look up the dates of the laying of an Order, and the coming into force of the Order, he will find that, in the


Coalition Government, it was about ten days, and, furthermore, it was very frequently the case that the time for laying an Order could not be allowed because it was necessary to make the changes quickly.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: May I interrupt the hon. Member? Whether an Order was wrongly laid or unnecessarily laid in the time of the Coalition Government, does not matter in the least today. My hon. Friends and I would have objected, and so would all on the opposite side of the House. It is entirely a non-party matter.

Mr. Gaitskell: I only wanted to make one further point. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) who moved this Prayer in the first instance was, I think, particularly concerned with the point, as was the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) that an Order should not come into force before it had actually been published. Therefore it is perfectly relevant to point out that this Order did not come into force until 10 or 12 days—I think 13 to be precise—afterwards and that was the normal period to which nobody has hitherto objected at all.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: In dealing with this Order, assuming that the Minister's reply was going to be the same for the first five or six Orders, I have brought in some of the arguments relevant to the other Orders. There is no question about it——there was a time between the signing of some of these Orders and the time they were laid on the Table, when they had the force of law, and nobody knew anything about it.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Challen: I have my name down to the next Motion on the Paper which concerns the Board of Trade, and I wondered whether we should make our points now on this particular Motion and let the Minister answer the criticisms that we have to make. There is only one remark that I wish to make on this subject—although I could make some more on one or two of these Orders which appear to be rather superabundant. After a long period in the last Parliament we eventually established a committee, which is now an all-Party committee with a preponderant representation of Members of the Party opposite upon it, to supervise these Orders and report to this House.
That Committee has reported that none of these Orders—and that is what we are praying against—has been put on the Table of this House as should have been done. We all know that a defence may be put up on the ground of printing difficulties, on the ground of lack of staff and so on. But in dealing with this matter we should have absolute priority in printing, so that Members of Parliament, the House of Commons and the public may know precisely where they stand. Instead of that, we find that this Committee, consisting of Members of this House, with a preponderant majority of Members of the Party opposite, reports to this House that these Orders were unduly delayed. That is the reason the Motions are put down now. They are unduly delayed and therefore some explanation is required from the Minister. I do not want to add to what has already been said on the Prayers and that is why I have taken the opportunity of making my remarks now.

10.49 P.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): I think perhaps I ought to preface my remarks by drawing attention to the fact that this is the occasion of my first essay from this Box, and perhaps to apologise for my Department having made it necessary for me to occupy what I have hitherto regarded as a somewhat exclusive position—that of a person called upon to answer Prayers. I hope that I shall not be found wanting. Let me say at once, I entirely endorse everything that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) said about the necessity for these Orders being made public as quickly as possible after they are made. It is perfectly true that they have the force of an Act of Parliament, and the House and the general public are entitled to know as quickly as possible what the Orders are about, and what are the statutory obligations laid upon the people. The existing procedure, as I understand it, is that Orders shall be laid before the House— in that very unsatisfactory Parliamentary phrase—" as soon as may be "after they are made, and that when they are laid before the House, simultaneously there should be sent to the Scrutinising Committee fifteen printed copies of each Order. That means, of course, that the Order cannot be laid until it is printed-

Captain Crowder: As a Member of that Committee, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would agree that they could be typewritten or roneoed? I know it is easier to have them printed so that they can be circulated, but that really is not a valid excuse. They could roneo fifteen copies.

Mr. Belcher: I was not offering it as an excuse, but setting out, for the convenience of the House, the procedure as 1 understand it to exist at the present time. The Scrutinising Committee has recently recommended that the period between the making of the Order, and the laying of that Order in the House, should not exceed seven days. May I at once point out that that recommendation of the Scrutinising Committee was made after the making of these particular Board of Trade Orders—although, again, I do not offer that as an excuse for any undue delay. It is the case that in five of these six particular Board of Trade Orders the delay was occasioned entirely in the process of printing. We have been given by the hon. Member for Eastbourne figures of the number of days calculated to be taken in the printing of Orders of various sizes, going from three days for an Order of four pages to seven days for an Order of 40 pages, or something like that. I am afraid it is not possible to say. with any certainty, that an Order of four pages will in any one particular case take three days, while an Order of twice as many pages will take one more, and so on. A lot will depend upon the time of the year, and on the amount of the work the Stationery Office is being called upon to deal with. In this case, of course, these Orders were being made round about Christmas time, when I understand there was undue pressure on the Stationery Office, and when because of the holidays there was an accumulation of work.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: With a little foresight on the part of the Department concerned they could have foreseen that some of these Orders might have been necessary. They could have said, "Look here, we are bound to have an Order on underwear over the Christmas period. We foresee this, and we will get it out so that it will be ready."

Mr. Belcher: It is possible there might have been" more foresight. I am merely

trying to explain why in these particular cases there was this delay of some seven or eight days. The hon. and gallant Member for Finchley (Captain Crowder) has made a suggestion as to what should be clone. He suggests that we should cut out the work by having the Orders signed in typescript, that we should have them set up in print and, presumably, signed in proof. We have gone further than that in the Board of Trade. It has been decided that future Board of Trade Orders will be signed in print, so that it will be possible to lay them before the House within the shortest possible tune—certainly well within the seven days asked for by the Scrutinising Committee.
It may afford hon. Members some satisfaction if I tell them that I have gone further than that, and have instituted my own scrutinising committee in the Board of Trade to keep an eye on our own orders so as to avoid anything going wrong in the future. I can say to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing), who I think suggested that we might be trying to "slip one over," that there is certainly no desire on the part of my right hon. and learned Friend, or myself, or any officer in the Department, to do that. It may happen from time to time that there are errors of judgment, involving delays, for which we will be called to account by the scrutinising committee, but in most organisations there will, occasionally, be errors of judgment.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: If the hon. Member says I was suggesting that the Board of Trade was, so to speak, dishonestly trying to slip something across I did not mean that. What I meant was that something slipped in which inadvertently led to trouble.

Mr. Belcher: I accept the hon. Member's explanation. I have tried to make it plain that there is no desire for any undue delay. We appreciate the gravity of these orders, and the fact that they should be laid before the House, for the benefit of Members and the public, as quickly as possible. We have taken steps which will lead to a speed up of the process, and I can only ask, in view of the assurance and explanation I have given, that Members opposite will not press their Prayer for the annulment of the orders, but will allow them to go through.

10.57 P.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sure that the House as a whole, irrespective of party, would like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his maiden effort at the Box. We are glad to welcome him, and were interested to hear about the scrutinising committee which he has set up in the Board of Trade. We take note of the fact that it has, possibly, come into operation after these Prayers were put on the Order Paper, but, nevertheless, we welcome it, and wish it every success. The hon. Member for South Leeds (Mr. Gaitskell) said there had been Ministerial statements on the substance of this Order and suggested that this was adequate preparation of the public for the Order. But the hon. Member knows that a great many things are said by Ministers and others on the Government side in advance of intentions, with which the country as a whole cannot be satisfied. I remember at the last Election—and I hope I am in Order—hearing a great deal about the intentions of the Socialist Government to break the film ring. The hon. Member for South Leeds knows, no doubt to his own satisfaction, that very little has been done about that—

Mr. Gaitskell: I must protest. I must ask for your protection, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The hon. Member has made serious allegations against me which I must ask to be withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) were relevant.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If you think, Sir, that my remarks were un-Parliamentary I will withdraw them, but the hon. Member opposite is entitled to feel that the particular set up in the film industry might be most conducive to the prosperity of that industry. If that set up is maintained that is, no doubt, a matter for his own satisfaction. I see nothing improper in having said that, but if the hon. Member is in any personal doubt that I have said something to cause him offence I will, of course, withdraw—

Mr. Gaitskell: I would like to correct what is evidently a misapprehension, namely, that I am in favour of a monopoly in the film industry, or that I have any connection with any monopoly.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I know nothing about that. The hon. Member will, no doubt, have many opportunities of making his own position in that great capitalist industry perfectly clear. All I was concerned about was to make clear that Ministerial pronouncements and Private Members' pronouncements have no validity in advance of some Order, and that the, House and the consuming public, for whose welfare we were first called into existence, need to wait for the Orders themselves. This slight contretemps will not mitigate against the genuine compliment which I paid to the hon. Gentleman, and we hope that the scrutnising committee in his own Department will follow up the recommendations of the all-party scrutinising committee, and that the limit of seven days will be followed in future. We shall then find that, in the spate of legislation which has been threatened, or promised, according to one's political predilections, thus safeguard will be introduced, to the general satisfaction of all sides of the House. In the light of the explanation made by the hon. Gentleman, although I gather that one of my hon. Friends has a point of substance to raise on the merits of the Order, which are frequently lost sight of in the consideration of the constitutional aspects of the problem, we do not intend to press either the first or second Prayer, although, as the hon. Gentleman has already been warned, there is a point of substance on the third Prayer.

11.1 p.m.

Sir William Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) for bringing up this very important matter. I welcome the opportunity to pray that this Order be annulled on its merits, or demerits. Any stranger to the Debates would not recognise that the subject of the discussion had any reference to women's and maids' outerwear. That is the subject of the Order which we are now praying shall be annulled. The Minister's reply did not touch on those aspects in which the general public are concerned. I hope the Order will be annulled, because it is an objectionable Order, an Order to which large numbers of women throughout the country take exception. On general principles, I am against this control and other controls, and I hope the Order will be annulled for that reason, but I am


reinforced in my views by something which has appeared in the public Press during the last few days. The Amalgamated Engineering Union is an important body whose opinions certainly on engineering and trade matters are treated with respect; their opinions on other matters, as published in their journal, are also treated with respect. There appeared in their journal the statement that they are not at one with the policy of His Majesty's Government and particularly the policy—

Mr. Speaker: I very much doubt whether they expressed an opinion on the subject of women's outerwear, which is the subject of this Order. The hon. Member must keep to the Order.

Sir W. Darling: With respect to you, Mr. Speaker, they did express an opinion on women's outerwear and other austerity proposals of His Majesty's Government. I thought it odd, as you do, that these pronouncements, more fitting to the "Drapers' Record," appeared in this somewhat hardfaced journal, but it is the case that they deplored the policy of austerity, which this Order seeks to confirm. The policy of austerity limits the price

Mr. Speaker: The question of austerity is rather wide of this Order. The hon. Member must stick to the Order.

Sir W. Darling: I than you for your guidance. The Order refers to the restrictions placed upon manufacturers of women's outerwear not to sell at any price higher than£12 is. 6d or£17 11s. od.
 a costume made wholly or mainly of wool cloth consisting of skirt and jacket (not being both tailored and fully lined jacket) or cardigan.
This particular Union deplored Orders of this character, in that they imposed what they thought were unnecessary standards of austerity upon the public. That view is shared by others. The trade itself believes that this restriction on the price prevents the expansion and development of our trade.
These fashioned garments of women's outerwear cannot be developed as a home trade or a suitable export trade. They

are restrained by the impositions of this Order and, to that extent, I pray the Order will be annulled. The hon. Member for South Leeds (Mr. Gaitskell) said in defence of this Order that the President of the Board of Trade had had many consultations with the trade on this matter. The argument to be adduced was that if the trade agreed, the women and "the maids who wanted outerwear were not concerned. That is a very improper and undemocratic proposal. We have heard in this House such arguments frequently used by His Majesty's Government. We heard in connection with the Mining Bill that the Mining Association agreed, there fore the public should agree—

Mr. Cobb: What has the miners' business to do with this Order?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member rose just before me. I was going to ask the same question.

Sir W. Darling: Perhaps it is out of Order for me to say so, but this reference of matters to trade associations, as a buttress for the policy of His Majesty's Government, does not seem very respectful to Parliament. Ought we to accept the Coal Bill because the miners agree to it, the Bank of England Bill because—

Mr. Speaker: This is far outside the scope of the Order.

Sir W. Darling: The observations of the hon. Member for South Leeds, which were apparently relevant, provoked me to make these observations in support of what I had to say. I would go further and refer to the first Schedule to the Order. Item No. 7 causes me some concern. Several hon. Members who, like me, are not connected with the textile trade are interested in this matter. The item is:
 Jacket, blazer, cardigan, waistcoat, bolero or like garment, including any coat, cape or cloak, not more than 28 inches in length:
(a) made wholly or mainly of wool cloth…
(b) not made wholly or mainly of wool cloth…
These garments may not be sold for more than£8 8s. od. in the case of (b) and£11 11s. od. in the case of (a). I am against this Order because I am against any restriction in the embellishment of the women of this country. I hope I have the women with me, in praying that this


Order be annulled, in order that grace and loveliness and beauty shall flourish.

11.8 p.m.

Sir J. Mellor: I want to raise a point on the second Motion which I understand we are discussing at the same time as the first Motion. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he will explain one point which arises in the Memoranda from Departments which was ordered to be printed on 5th February. If I might refer him to page 5—

Mr. C. S. Taylor: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the second Motion to be discussed with the first one?

Mr. Speaker: I understood that as the Orders were more or less the same, we would take the first two together. I do not want time to be wasted unnecessarily.

Mr. Taylor: The first two, Sir, but on the third, I understand, there is a point of substance.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If I might attempt to clarify the position, the first six Orders all relate to the Board of Trade. We have only one point of substance to be raised by an hon. Member behind me on the third Order. Apart from that, I believe my hon. Friends and I have no wish to discuss these Prayers separately. We are prepared to agree that all six Orders, apart from the third Order, should be taken together.

Sir J. Mellor: As I was saying, I refer to page 5 of the Memorandum, in the second paragraph of which is a reference to the directions given in Statutory Rule and Order No. 1506 of 1945, in the course of which it is stated:
 The directions were made a day after the requirements of laying these instruments came into operation, and it is probable that the officers concerned were not fully familiar with the necessary procedure. Probably, for the same reason, it has not been possible to ascertain the exact point or points at which delay occurred.
That seems to me rather an astonishing statement to make—that these directions could be prepared without leaving any trace or record of their passing behind them, and I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary could explain how that is possible.

Mr. Belcher: I agree that, as stated in the Memorandum, it does seem rather

extraordinary that we are unable to say why the delay occurred in this case and have failed to find out where it occurred. That, however, happens to be the case at the moment. This happened, of course, before I went to the Board of Trade, and, though I cannot speak personally about it, I accept responsibility. We are doing all we can to find out what happened, and, when we do know, we shall take effective steps to prevent it happening again.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has already spoken.

Mr. Taylor: I only want, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

11.13 p.m.

Sir J. Mellor: I beg to move,
 That the Order, dated 6th December, 1945, entitled the General Apparel and Textiles (Wholesalers and Retailers' Maximum Prices and Charges) (No. 3) Order, 1945 (S.R.&amp; O., 1945, No. I529), a copy of which was presented on 18th December, be annulled.
For the reasons which I explained previously I propose to move this Motion formally, in order to enable one or two of my hon. Friends, who wish to raise points of substance on the merits of the Order, to make their speeches.

Major Guy Lloyd: I beg to second the Motion.

11.14 p.m.

Major Spence: I support the Motion for the annulment of this Order, on a matter of substance. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would acquaint the House with the fact that I am a textile manufacturer and therefore speak with expert knowledge of this subject. I would direct the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to paragraph 1 (2, a), of the Order which excludes knitted garments other than garments made up from knitted cloth from the operation of this Order. The purpose of this is to fix the price of such articles, and the reason for excluding knitted garments is, of course, that 95 per cent. of all knitted garments have to be supplied to the public under the utility and price regulations already laid down by the Board of Trade. I wish to draw


the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Schedule on page 2, line 7, in which permission is given for a blouse or a jumper to be sold at a retail price, including Purchase Tax, of£6. I now pass to the explanatory note on page 3 which says that the ceiling prices do not apply to knitted garments, but they do apply to garments made from knitted cloth. This is the substance of my first ground of complaint against the Order. As an experienced technical man in this trade, 1 think, it is not possible to lay down an Order which distinguishes between a garment made from knitted cloth and a knitted garment. There are shades and variations so fine to distinguish that the one weaves into the other, and I feel that it is wrong to discriminate against a knitted garment, and to allow a garment made from knitted cloth to have a ceiling price of£6. The Order as it stands also gives opportunities for evasion, because it would be perfectly easy to buy an ordinary utilty garment, alter it in the workshop, and then sell it again for a much higher price.
I would also like to draw attention to page 2 of the Order where provision is made for the raising of prices for supplying larger sizes. There what is described as an outsize garment is one 41 inches round the bust, and 44 inches round the hips. Anything over and including that is an outsize garment. Now I know from experience over very many years that that docs not meet the case at any rate for a great many people. There are people who go far beyond these measurements, and the result of the Order is that if some good lady does not conform to the Board of Trade's required dimensions, she is compelled to go to a tailor and have a garment or costume made at a very much higher price than the ceiling fixed here. I do feel that for the larger sizes over and above the outsize permitted in the Order, there should be a sliding scale. There is an allowance in the Order for 15 per cent., and that should be extended. The Parliamentary Secretary would be astounded if I told him some of the massive constructions I have had to produce to meet the demands of the British public, and 1 suggest that, on those grounds, the Order should be annulled. One other argument I would like to adduce, is in the

reference to the WX size, as it is called. Here there is no permission to share in the rise of price at all. As the Parliamentary Secretary well knows, the ordinary women's size is 36 inches, and the WX is 40 inches on the bust measurements. Everyone experienced in the trade will know that on the; average the WX size needs a longer fitting, and therefore a lot more cloth is needed. I suggest that in this Order there should be provision, for the large sizes below outsize with a percentage rise to allow for the WX fittings.

11.19 p.m.

Mr. Belcher: I was not expecting, in replying on to this Motion, that 1 would have to go into these involved details about sizes

Squadron Leader Sir Gilford Fox: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary should understand and know the Orders and what is contained in the Orders.

Mr. Belcher: If the hon. and gallant Member would allow me to go on, he would learn that I am not apologising on the ground that I do not know what is in the Order. I was merely explaining that T had not expected to have to go into these details about bust measurements, waists, hips and so on, but I will do my best to deal with them. As I understand it, there arc two grounds of complaint and the first is that we discriminate, or rather distinguish, between knitted garments and garments made from knitted cloth.
The hon. and gallant Member complains that, it is very difficult to make 1hat distinction, and that it is possible, with a certain amount of skill, to effect an alteration in one garment which will make it resemble more closely other garments on which there is no ceiling price. I can only say that I suppose that would apply in a very large number of instances, quite apart from knitted garments and garments of knitted cloth. I suppose that, with sufficient skill, it would be possible to effect alterations in all sorts of articles and commodities which are subject to a ceiling price. which would enable them to be sold above the ceiling price. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Aberdeen


(Major Spence) speaks with technical knowledge which I do not possess but I must assure the House that, in all these matters, we were in constant consultation with representative trade bodies, and were advised by them; and before this Order was introduced we were in consultation with the appropriate trade body. Their views must have been that this particular regulation could be put into operation and be made effective.
On the question of outsizes, I am not sure that I understood the hon. and gallant Member correctly. We have fixed certain measurements, as we must, qualifying for this description, and are prepared to increase the ceiling price by fifteen per cent., in the case of garments of these measurements or more. Do I understand the hon. and gallant Member to say we should go further, and have an extra outsize for which we could make an allowance of, say, twenty or twenty-five per cent., if you like?

Major Spence: Yes. My hon. Friend has correctly stated the position with regard to outsize garments. The position is that if you have a garment with a forty-one-inch bust you get fifteen per cent. extra for it. But the lady of considerably bigger dimensions finds herself up against the fact that the manufacturer is not prepared to use cloth for which he does not get paid, and says she must have the garment made outside the regulations altogether—let me remind the House that we are dealing with a ready-made garment—and he forces on her thereby a made to measure garment. My other point was not that you should be able to sell the garment without a ceiling price. The point was that under the regulation you can buy a utility article for probably 16s., do a bit of messing about with it, and sell it again for£.

Mr. Belcher: Referring to the point about the outsizes, I sec the strength of the complaint. But I think there would be a small number of excessively outsize women—if I may use the term—for whom if would be difficult to supply these articles. I suggest that so far as the retailer is concerned, or the manufacturer, there is a likelihood that things will equal out. He is making a profit, of course, on the exceptionally small woman, and I would say, from personal observation—

though I do not claim to be very observant in this matter—that there are quite as many excessively small, as excessively large, women. Then there is the question of introducing the WX woman—I hope Members are following these OS's and WX's. I am doing my best to follow the hon. and gallant Member, without alteration to the phrases he used. Again, I think this is a question of practicability. We are constantly harried about imposition of controls and limitations in all directions. Here is a case where we are trying to make the thing as simple as we can, and we are being urged to introduce into the Order and the Schedule, ranges of price differentiation to meet all kinds of different sizes and shapes in the fair sex. I suggest that what we have here is a reasonable and sensible attempt to deal with this problem, recognising that there are exceptions at one end of the scale for which provision has to be made. I would assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in conclusion, that I have taken note of the points he has made. These matters will come up again, and I will remember what he has said tonight. If we find that his suggestions are practicable, and they do agree with the opinions of our trade advisers, I shall not be lacking in willingness to see that these matters be put in order.

Sir J. Mellor: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — CATERING WAGES

11.26 p.m.

Lord William Scott: I beg to move,
 That the Order, dated 3rd December 1945, entitled the Wages Board (Unlicensed Residential Establishment) Order, 1945 (S.R.&amp;; O., 1945, No. 1510), a copy of which was presented on 17th December, be annulled.
I will also refer to the two following Motions, namely:
 That the Order dated 13th December 1945, entitled the Control of Engagement (Amendment) Order. 1945 (S.R.&amp; O., 1945.No. 1557) a copy of which was presented on 22nd January, be annulled." and
" That the Order, dated 13th December 1945, entitled the Disabled Persons (Standard Percentage) Order, 1945 (S.R.&amp; O., 1945, "No. 1570), a copy of which was presented on 22nd January, be annulled.


These three Prayers come under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Labour and National Service, and my remarks about them will be very similar to those which we have just addressed to the President of the Board of Trade. In this case, we again have the explanation given in the White Paper issued yesterday or today giving an explanation of the delay which was caused by these Orders being placed on the Table, and I notice in this White Paper, that a paragraph deals with No. 180 and subsequent Orders. The second Order, which is the Control of Engagement Order, is described as S.R. and O. No. 1577. The Control of Engagement Order was No 1557 I assume that this is a misprint, because it would appear to be Order No. 1557. Perhaps the Minister will explain who is responsible for this particular misprint, whether it is all part of the same hurry and whether the misprint was due to anything in his Ministry or how it occurred. It does seem there is a certain amount of slackness creeping into the production of these papers. I have no desire to take up the time of the House in reiteration because there are more Orders on the Paper, and Members have to show that they are doing their duties properly to the country. I do not think it would be right, merely because we want to get to bed early, that we should cut out necessary observations. I drew the Minister's attention to what may be just a small slip, but we do not like seeing these small slips in important documents.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: I beg to second the Motion.
There is one small point which I would like to add to the points that my hon. Friend has made and also the points made to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, and it refers to the Catering Wages Order. I would like to know whether there is any explanation forthcoming why this Order was laid on the Table in another place on 12th December and it was not laid on the Table in this House until 17th December? It was reported in the explanation given by the Ministry of Labour and National Service that, up to the date of the publication of the White Paper, they had not been able to find out why it was laid in another place before it was laid here. I do hope that

really serious efforts have been made to find out why it was that it was laid there before it was laid here.

11.31 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): May I say, in the first place, that no objection can be taken at all to Members of this House performing their proper functions in drawing to the attention of the House any mistakes or slips made by the Administration. It is a proper function of the House, and I say merely, as a Parliamentary Secretary, that I am glad that our attention is being drawn to mistakes of this sort. It keeps our machine up to pitch, and it certainly puts Ministers and Junior Ministers on their mettle in seeing to it that the House is properly informed of these regulations not only as quickly as may be, but, to use a new phrase, immediately they are agreed to. In the first place, on the question of the Wages Order of 1945, I think the position is quite clear. The printed proofs of this Order were signed by the Secretary on 3rd December and signed proofs were returned to the Stationery Office on 4th December for final printing. Prints of the Order were received from the Stationery Office on 12th December, and 15 copies were sent to the Clerk to the Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders on that date. Up to that point, there is no delay and the whole thing has gone through properly.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not listen to the arguments we put forward so carefully to the Minister representing the Board of Trade. We suggested that, with a little vision, the time between the signing of the Order and the tabling of the Order could be cut down by getting the Order in print and various other devices which the hon. Member will be able to read in HANSARD tomorrow, if he has the time to do so. There are various suggestions put forward for reducing the time.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member, but I would remind him that the manner in which this procedure has to be carried out is provided for by Statute. May I remind him that there is now before Parliament the Statutory Instruments Bill which carries forward the procedure. It says that they


must be printed, and in dealing with this Order, we have gone through the usual motions provided for by the custom and procedure of this House. As I am advised, however—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, who is giving a very good explanation of this Order. Can we take it from him that the recent Statutory Instruments Bill has in fact held up Parliamentary scrutiny of those Orders?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I do not think that interpretation can be placed upon what I. have said. Here is the position. We have gone through the procedure provided for up to that point. It may well be said— and I have sympathy with the suggestion—that the amount of time should be decreased, and that the House should know as quickly as possible. It may well be that at the Stationery Office we might expect much more expedition than perhaps we are getting.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: That is not the point.

Mr. Ness Edwards: With all due respect, it is the point. As I understand it has to be printed and signed, and has to be reprinted, and it cannot be reprinted until the draft has been signed by the authorised person in the Department.

Mr. Taylor: I do not want to interrupt again, but I would ask the hon. Gentleman to read the arguments which we put forward. He can read them in the Official Report tomorrow, and he will see exactly where his argument—with the greatest respect—falls to the ground. We suggested that the Order should be set up in type ready to be run off. There is no need to wait until the Order is signed before the printing process is set up in type. There are all sort of ways of cutting down time and still being within the regulations as provided by Statute.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Coming back to the point, my information is they must be printed, they cannot be roneoed, and "printed" we understand to mean printed in the proper manner. I shall certainly look with interest at HANSARD tomorrow, and if it does give us some ways and means of letting the House know more quickly—as it is entitled to

know—than at present, we will see what can be done on that point.
The next point was that on 12th December these copies were sent to the House. It is very peculiar that the Order is recorded as having been laid in the House of Lords on the 12th December, but for some reason which our Department is unable to explain the House of Commons did not record the laying of the Order until 17th December. Now perhaps the hon. Gentleman would give me his attention. So far, we are unable to satisfy ourselves that our Department is not without some responsibility in this matter. We cannot say that the Department [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentlemen will listen they will see the point. We cannot rightly blame the officers of the House, because we cannot be sure ourselves, and the envelope in which these Orders were addressed in the House is missing. On the one hand, it may have been delay in passing the Orders from one section of the House to another. On the other hand, if the Orders went to the wrong place we cannot say that the responsibility was with our Department because we do not know to whom they were addressed, except that they were addressed to the House of Commons. I can assure hon. Members that such a mistake, if a mistake of that sort was made, is not likely to occur again.
I take it it is only on the question of the machinery that the matter is being raised, and I now come to the other point, raised by the Noble Lord, the Disabled Persons (Standard Percentage) Order, 1945. Here is the position with regard to the time-table of this Order. The Order was signed on the proof print on the 13th December and sent by the stationery section to the printers on the 17th December asking for delivery very urgently. Copies were received from the Stationery Office late on 21st December and sent immediately to the House of Commons, but the House had risen. Therefore, it is possible that if the Stationery Office had been informed that the Order must be printed, or should have been printed by 20th December, we could have got the Order here to the House in time for Members to take copies away with them at the Christmas Recess. I appreciate that point, but it is immaterial. This Order does not come into force until 1st March this year. In view of that, and the fact that such long


notice was given, there is not really much substance in the charge of undue delay in connection with this Order. On the other hand, I agree that as soon as the Minister signs the Order it should be laid on the Table of the House as quickly as possible.
Now I come to the third point, namely, the Control of Engagement Order, 1945. With all due respect to the noble Lord who raised it, I did not quite follow what he said about a misprint—

Lord William Scott: The White Paper which was printed and sent to this House, either yesterday or to-day, gives reasons, in writing, for the sundry delays and other matters which affected the Select Committee dealing with Statutory Rules and Orders, has, on page 5, the four Orders which affect the Minister of Labour and National Insurance. The first Order deals with bakehouses and the second the Control of Engagement (Amendment) Order, 1945 (S.R.& O., 1945, No. 1577). The figure of 1577 should be 1557. The Parliamentary Secretary may say that this "is a trivial point, but he does not know the time I wasted in trying to find out what 1577 was, only to discover. eventually, that is was a misprint. I thought it was most unusual to find a misprint in a White Paper of this description, and I wondered whether this was part of the brave new world.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The noble Lord has certainly made a brave speech, but I would draw his attention to the fact that the misprint occurs in the Select Committee's Report, that Committee being comprised of Members in all parts of the House.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: The Stationery Office.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I do not want to put the fault on the Stationery Office. I will leave it to posterity to decide who is responsible, but at any rate the Ministry of Labour is not responsible, although I am sorry that the noble Lord had such difficulty.

Lord William Scott: rose—

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am sorry. I have no wish to be discourteous, but I cannot give way again.
Now I come to the Order in which the figure 1577 occurs. This Order was made by the Minister on 13th December,

1945, under Regulation 58A of the Defence Regulations, 1939. Prior to the passing of the Supplies and Services Act, 1945, on 10th December last, Orders made under the Defence (General) Regulations were not required to be laid before Parliament or submitted to the Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders. Unfortunately, it was overlooked in the Department that under Section 4 Subsection (1) of that Act the Order should have been laid before Parliament, and copies sent to the Select Committee. Immediately the Department discovered this, steps were taken to remedy the omission. The Order was laid before both Houses, and copies were sent to the Select Committee, on 10th January of this year. This was an order which freed a large number of people from control. It did not impose penalties upon anybody. It was to decrease the area to which penalties applied. In that sense, no serious damage has been done. But the Department was quite wrong. It had not taken the steps provided for in the new Act, and perhaps it was because it was a new Act that the misunderstanding is understandable. I have to stand here in sackcloth and ashes and say that the Department was wrong, and to give the House an assurance that the Department will see to it that in this matter it will not be wrong again. In those circumstances, I hope hon. Members in all parts of the House will be satisfied with the explanation.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: I am very satisfied with the explanation, but is it not a pity—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to speak again on this Order.

Mr. Taylor: I wished to ask a question, Mr. Speaker. Why was not the explanation, obviously sincere and satisfactory, which we have now heard, put in the explanations delivered to the House either yesterday or today? If it had been, it might have been unnecessary to. move the Prayer.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I can only say that the views I have expressed were submitted to the Select Committee, and as far as I am aware, I am not telling the House anything other than what was told the Select Committee.

Lord William Scott: In view of the explanation which the Minister has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.

11.48 p.m

Sir J. Mellon: I beg to move,
 That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Regulations, dated 3rd December, 1945, entitled the Contributory Pensions (Emergency Provisions) Regulation's, 1943 (S.R.&amp; O., 1945, No. 1655), a copy of which was presented on 22nd January, be annulled.
I think it might be convenient to the House if I dealt also with the next Prayer, which relates to National Health Insurance, as they both concern the same Minister. Both the Regulations in question were made on 3rd December, but they were not presented to the House until 22nd January. Therefore, the primary purpose in moving the Prayer is to obtain an explanation with regard to the delay. 1 would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance to explain one particular point arising from the last paragraph of the memorandum of explanation, which reads:
 It is a requirement (Treasury circular 13/44, paragraph 6) that printed copies of regulations shall be sent to the Select Commitiee at the same time that regulations are laid before Parliament. Were it not for this, the regulations could have been presented to Parliament in proof form, with manuscript completion, before Parliament rose.
That is a Treasury circular, and therefore presumably it is not a statutory obligation. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the Treasury have been asked to reconsider the terms of that circular, which appears to have been somewhat embarrassing. There is a further point I wish to raise with reference to Statutory Order No. 1644, to which the second Prayer relates. I asked a Question last week upon this Statutory Order. I asked the Minister of National Insurance:
 Why the National Health Insurance (Emergency Additional Benefits) Amendment Regulations, contained in Order No. 1644, were certified as urgent instead of being laid in the proper time so as to come into operation under the normal procedure?
The Minister replied:
 The Regulations to which the hon. Member refers were required to be made urgently be-

cause owing to the. suspension valuations of approved societies during the emergency period, additional benefits and claims covering about 400,000 insured persons would otherwise have come to an end on 6th January, 1946. As the hon. Member will see the Regulations involve consultations with a number of authorities including the Ministers of Labour and Finance for Northern Ireland. By the date when the necessary provisions for making all Regulations were obtained there was not time before the 6th January to give the prescribed notice of the proposal to make the Regulations an.! it was accordingly necessary to make the Regulations to come into force at once as provisional Regulations.
As I understand the position—I may have misunderstood it—it must have been known three years ago that the, additional benefits would come to an end on 6th January last unless steps were taken for an extension. Therefore I am afraid I cannot understand why, with such long notice, steps were not taken at a sufficiently early date to enable this Regulation to be made in the ordinary way instead of requiring certification by the Treasury that it was urgent. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will explain those two points in particular and the delay in general

Major Guy Lloyd: I beg to second the ' Motion.

11.53 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Lindgren): The explanation for the delay in laying the regulations is a simple one. It is unfortunate that the regulations, which had to be sent round, as Members will see from the signatures on them, to a number of persons to sign, were dated on the date on which they were first sent from the Ministry of National Insurance rather than on the date of the signature of the last person signing. In future we have arranged that the date of the regulation will, in fact, be the date upon which the last person signs. Therefore, it will obviate any possiblity of delay in that way for the future. At least, we hope it will. I think the House should be satisfied that will, in fact, get over the position. In so far as the last point made by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) is concerned, the point was overlooked arising from the consideration of the new Insurance Bill and the fact that, in connection with the additional benefits that are now applied within approved societies, the matter was under consideration. It should have been done


before, but—I hope the hon. Member will not come back at us for this—because of the heavy pressure upon the staff, it was overlooked, and we are sorry.

11.54 P.m.

Mr. McKie: 1 am glad to hear the very candid admission which has been made regarding the oversight in the Department but I would like to say, in support of what my hon. Friend has just said, that I hope this will not become the rule. We on this side of the House have had considerable experience. In fact, the administration, speaking generally, is suffering now—

Mr. Speaker: I have not heard a single word so far.

Mr. McKie: I am very sorry, Sir. I was saying that Members on the opposite side of the House are suffering, generally speaking, from sins of omission. I was particularly glad to hear this candid admission of failure on behalf of a Department to lay these Orders or regulations within the requisite time. I sincerely hope, with the hon. Member, that there will be considerable improvement in time to come. Unless there is improvement in this and all other Departments, the Executive of the day will find themselves in even more troubled waters in future than today. I am very glad to support what the hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) said about this House being fully informed. I congratulate the Minister on being the first to have the courage to come down to the House and candidly admit that there has been a lack of informing the House in due time, and taking the House fully into the confidence of his Department. I congratulate him. [Laughter.] This is not a matter for laughter, and perhaps Members of the Executive, and hon. Members who support them, may have cause in the coming months to regret their mirth, frivolity and laughter on this occasion. I single out the Minister for praise in having the courage to come to the House and take the House fully, frankly and freely into his confidence and admit failure and defeat, because it is defeat. The House has not been treated with the full courtesy with which it might have been treated. We have not had one head of a Department which has been arraigned—and several Departments have been concerned—and I think

Mr. Pritt): rose—

Mr. McKie: The hon. and learned Member need not take it upon himself to be the apologist for—

Mr. Pritt: I was not apologising. wished to say that there were no heads among the people addressing us.

Mr. McKie: If all speakers, either on the Government or the Opposition Benches, needed to be heads of Departments in order to address this House, they ought to address you, Mr. Speaker, and I say that it ill befits the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) to make apology for those on the Government Front Bench. The House, or Members on the Opposition side of the House, ought to have been treated with greater respect and courtesy, inasmuch as. we should have had one head of a Minis try present on the Treasury Bench to night to answer the very serious allegations which have been made. This is a general complaint, and the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) made some very caustic criticisms and no- Minister was present to hear them. I do congratulate the Minister on having the courage to come down to the House and—

Mr. Speaker: I would remind the hon. Member that he has already said that-three times.

Mr. McKie: I was just sitting down as I said it.

Sir J. Mellor: I beg to ask leave to with-draw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE) (FOOD)

12 midnight.

Sir W. Darling: I beg to move,
 That the Order, dated 10th December, 1945, amending the Labelling of Food (No. 2) Order, 1944 (S.R.&amp; O., 1945. No. 1550). copy of which was presented on 22nd January, be annulled.
I would also like to refer to the following Motion on the Order Paper:
 That the Order, dated nth December, 1945, entitled the Bananas Order, 1945 (S.R.&amp; O., 1945, No. 1551), a copy of which was presented on 22nd January, be annulled.".


I have been asked to move these two Motions by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Challen). These two Orders deal with the Ministry of Food. One of them deals with a succulent subject—bananas—and the other with a rather dry subject, namely, the labelling of food. They are mentioned in the print issued on 4th February by the Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders. The Minister there explains his reasons, or the reasons of his Department, for the delay. The explanation is, he says, that in neither case was the Order received from the printers in time to be laid before Parliament rose on 20th December. The Minister goes on to say that the Stationery Office was pressed with work. These are interesting views, but they are unsatisfactory. These are very important Orders. They may appear trivial to many hon. Members but we have made real discoveries by this series of Prayers It is the practice of this Government to govern by regulations and by this tedious, intricate, clumsy and bureaucratic method. Because it is a new thing it is liable to slip up every now and then. I am aware that this series of blunders is typical of the kind of method to which apparently we are to look forward in the future as the means by which this country is to be governed. I make that observation because when I looked at the Orders I thought that hon. Members might not be aware of their character. I want to refer to the first of these Orders

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member's name is not down on the Order Paper for this Motion, and, therefore, he is not entitled to move it.

Sir W. Darling: My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead asked me to move it in his absence.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may have asked the hon. Member to move it. but the hon. Member's name is not on the Order Paper and therefore he is not entitled to move it.

12.3 a.m.

Lord William Scott: I beg to move,
 That the Order, dated 10th December, 1945, amending the Labelling of Food (No. 2) Order, 1944 (S.R.&amp; O., 1945, No. 1550), a copy of which was presented on 22nd January, be annulled.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: I beg to second that Motion.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill)rose—

Sir W. Darling: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I called on the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food.

Mr. McKie: Is it in Order for a Minister in charge not to give way to an hon. Member when he rises?

Mr. Speaker: I did not notice the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling). I called upon the Minister.

Sir W. Darling: I thought that I was. in Order in resuming.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister rose, and I called the Minister, who is therefore entitled to speak.

Sir G. Fox: On a point of Order, Sir, If the Minister now replies, can the Minister answer any questions that are put from this side of the House?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister will be able to answer questions.

12.5 a.m

Dr. Edith Summerskill: I rose because I was anxious that the House should not be kept longer. It is past midnight now, and I am quite sure that Members are growing a little impatient at what is, after all, a repetitive Debate. Once more I have to come to this Box as my hon. Friend has, already, to apologise to the House. If there has been a delay in laying these Orders, I realise the inconvenience it must have caused. I must say that in neither case, were the Orders received from the printers in time to be laid before Parliament before the House rose on 20th December. Order 1550 was sent for printing on nth December and the prints were received on 21st December. It had been expected that they would be laid before Parliament on 19th December, but the Stationery Office was pressed with work to be got out be fore the Christmas holidays. Order 1551 was sent to the printers—

Lord William Scott: I only moved thee Prayer relating to Order 1550.

Mr. Speaker: I understood we were taking these Orders in batches.

Dr. Summerskill: I thought it was made clear at the beginning of the Debate that the Orders should be taken together. Order 1551 was sent for printing on nth December and the prints were received on 20th December. This explanation was given to the Select Committee in a memorandum on 21st January by the Ministry's liaison officer, and has been published by the Committee. I hope the House will be satisfied with this explanation. I can assure them that my Department is looking into this matter very carefully. We realise that this delay should not occur, and we are considering how the procedure for sending Orders to the Select Committee and laying them before Parliament can be improved.

12.8 a.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Can we have an assurance that neither of these Orders came into force before it was published; and, secondly, will the hon. Lady follow the example of the Board of Trade and set up within the Ministry of Food, which touches life at so many points and with such importance to the individual subject, the same sort of machinery which has just been announced for the Board of Trade?

Dr. Summerskill: I shall be only too happy to do that.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: And the assurance that neither Order came into operation before it was published?

Dr. Summerskill: I could not give that.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This is a matter of great importance. This is creating offences of which the subject might have been in ignorance because they came into operation before publication. In regard to one of these Orders, the explanatory memorandum says it comes into operation in April, 1946. In the other Order, there is no reference to when it comes into operation, and it would not be unreasonable, I think, to ask the hon. Lady to realise the importance of these Orders.

Dr. Summerskill: I fully realise their importance. I have been in the House for eight years.

12.10 a.m.

Sir G. Fox: The reason I raise a further point on this Motion is that only the Under-Secretary to the Ministry is here and not the Minister of Food. I would like to bring to the notice of the House that the Under-Secretary apparently objects to the asking of questions at this hour on the matter of bananas. It is after the hour of midnight, but the public, and our constituents, expect us to do our duty whatever the hour. Regarding Order No. 1551, I would like to ask how the term
 inn, public house, hotel, restaurant, buffet, coffee stall, or any place of refreshment open to the public ''
is interpreted and why British Restaurants are not included. They are just as important as inns, coffee stalls, public houses, or canteens. Why are they not included in this Order?.

12.13 a.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: In connection with these Motions we have been discussing this evening, the House will realise it is not only Members of the Opposition who have been vigilant in drawing attention to Statutory Rules and Orders. No doubt these Motions will be withdrawn as previous Motions have been; but 1 think the House will agree that the Scrutiny Committee, which contains a majority of Government supporters, has fulfilled a useful function in drawing the attention of Ministers of the Crown to the delay in publishing these Orders. I believe it will have a salutary effect on those Ministers of the Crown who have been present to answer and on others. But it does seem necessary to keep this matter in a proper perspective. There is no statutory obligation to lay these Orders within a specified time. It is the Scrutiny Committee which has made recommendations to that effect. What is desirable is that these Orders should be laid before they come into operation, and Members present this evening will have noticed that, in practically every case brought before the House, the date of coming into operation has been considerably subsequent to the date on which they were laid, although there has been some delay in presentation. [Interruption.] If hon. Members will listen they will hear of the exceptions. I have been dealing so far with the Motions that


have been disposed of. All the Motions that have been moved so far as we have gone have been withdrawn. I was coming to the exception, and the exception happens to be the particular Order with which we are concerned at the moment, and I myself regret that in this particular one—the one about bananas— the hon. Lady, the representative of the Ministry of Food, has I think really failed to do justice to her Department, because this is an Order of great public interest which was not presented to this House until after it came into operation. I have the Order here, and the Order was dated 11th December, and it came into operation on 31st December and it was not presented until 22nd January. That is a considerable time after the time when it came into operation. No doubt, if the printers had been a day or two quicker it would have been presented somewhere about 19th or 20th December, and therefore it would have been an opportunity—but even then only a very slight opportunity—for hon. Members to consider it. Having said that, I think the House ought to know it still seems to me an insufficient justification for putting down a Resolution of this kind asking that the Order should be annulled.

Mr. Taylor: That is the only way.

Mr. Fletcher: It may be the only Parliamentary method, but it does not seem to me to serve any useful purpose that this House should- tonight pass a Resolution—

Hon. Members: A Prayer, not a Resolution.

Mr. Fletcher: Hon. Members who have been responsible for putting these Motions on the Order Paper—

Hon. Members: Prayers.

Mr. Fletcher: Hon. Members who have been responsible for putting these Motions—

Hon. Members: Prayers.

Mr. Fletcher: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of repetition, may I say that hon. Members who have been responsible for put ting these Motions on the Order Paper appear to have failed to notice that in all the cases, except two, they are Motions and not Prayers. The form of the first nine or ten is a resolution in words such as these:

 That the Order dated 3rd December 1945 entitled Wages Board (Unlicensed Residential Establishments) Order 1945, S.R.&amp; O. 1945 "—

I am using it as an illustration—
 No. 1510, a copy of which was presented on 17th December, be annulled.

The first to the eighth and some of the others are in that form, but there are two which hon. Members are quite right in referring to as Prayers because they are in this form:
 That a Humble Address be presented to His Majesty "—

Sir J. Mellor: On a point of Order. Is this a Motion which is now before the House?

Mr. Speaker: This is not a Prayer; it is a Motion.

Sir J. Mellor: As we are discussing the Motion, has the question of these Prayers anything to do with this Motion?

Mr. Speaker: No, we have dealt with the Prayer.

Mr. Fletcher: The last thing I want to do is to pursue this interesting distinction this evening. I was tempted into this digression by the interjections of Members opposite. A Motion, and not a Prayer, is the proper description of most of the matters with which the House has been regaling itself this evening. It is time hon. Members learned to appreciate the substance of some of the Motions they put down, apparently only for the purpose of subsequently withdrawing them.

Major Guy Lloyd: On a point of Order. Is not that an insinuation which is rather unworthy?

Mr. Fletcher: I did not intend to embark on it. If I may now revert to the point I was making before I was interrupted, nothing has been said on this Motion, or on any other Motion, affecting the merits either of this Order or any other Order. Therefore, whatever one may say about—

Sir J. Mellor: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is in Order to discuss the Debate that has ranged this evening over a number of Motions, or is it in order only to discuss points arising on the Motion which is now before the House?

Mr. Speaker: We are discussing two Motions together now. Those are the ones to which we ought to address our attention.

Mr. Fletcher: In my concluding remarks I am confining my observations to the Motion on the Order dealing with bananas, which Motion will either be withdrawn or voted on. My submission to the House is, if it is not withdrawn the Motion should be resisted, because I can conceive no useful purpose in annulling that particular Order which is now in force and is wise, sensible and prudent.

12.23 a.m.

Sir W. Darling: I take my cue from the Member for East Islington (Mr. Fletcher), who deplores, and I think perhaps rightly—

Mr. Mikardo: On a point of Order. The hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) has already spoken on this subject. Had his speech been in Order he would, presumably, not have been allowed to speak again. Does the fact that his first speech was out of Order, make it possible for him to speak again?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that must be the case.

Sir W. Darling: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for East Islington told us that he deplores the somewhat academic' discussion on printers' delays being the subject of Prayers and Motions, and the merits of these Orders not being discussed. I would like to address myself to the merits, and so satisfy him, if I satisfy no other Member of the House. The Order I am looking at is the one dealing with Emergency Powers (Defence) Food (Labelling). I take it that but for the action of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) and his seconder we would have had no opportunity of looking at this extraordinary Order. Those Members who have burdened themselves with a copy of it will learn that it deals with the determination of the Ministry of Food that bottles shall be labelled. It is one of the most interesting of these many papers at which I ' have looked, in that it gives the design of the label and the size of the label. Certain labels must read:
 Fruit Basis Exclusively (x). Alcohol Content Not Less Than (y).

There are other labels which those who are in the unhappy position of endeavouring to sell bottled liquors are compelled to follow. It is an illuminating document in other respects. From page 2 one is gratified to learn that:
 For the purposes of this paragraph— (b) ' fruit ' includes rhubarb.
In case you desire to put into a bottle a concoction of fruit including rhubarb the label
 shall be printed in dark block type "—
It is unthinkable there could be any type other than dark block type—
 not less than⅛ inch in height upon a light coloured ground and shall be enclosed by a surrounding line.
I am quite serious in saying that if this Order, in its naked plainness, as I now see it after midnight, were placed before the House for consideration and discussion, it would be laughed out of court. No intelligent Member of Parliament would believe that such detailed instruction serves any useful purpose. If a person intends to bottle fluid he surely does not require authority from Mr. F. N. Tribe, of the Ministry of Food, to tell him how to do it. I hope the Minister, in reply, will deal with the substance and the merits of the case. What are the merits or the demerits? How will the body politic suffer by the labelling, or otherwise, of these bottles?
Now I come to bananas, a more interesting subject, on which I want to raise a point of national interest. I want to know whether the distribution of bananas is proceeding and whether they have gone into the county of Inverness to the parishes of Abernethy, Abertarff, Alvie, Arisaig, Boleskine, Duthil and Rothiemurchus, Glenelg, Kilmallie, Kin-gussie and Insh, Kilmonivaig, Kincardine, Laggan, and Moidart. There is a long list of Scottish names and I would like to know by what methods of transport they have reached the places I have just referred to, if at all. I hope others will appreciate the point in connection with these bananas, because this is the first time that the House has had an opportunity of discussing this matter. By an accident we are being given the chance of discussing a matter in which the public are profoundly interested, and on which something more may well be said.

12.27 a.m.

Mr. Pritt: I want to say a word or two about labels. The regulations when read sound funny. and move the more risible Members opposite to something resembling laughter. But the truth is that such things are necessary. If you have a regulation which might be disobeyed, it must be so definite that in a court of law it can be clearly shown that there was an infringement. The second and more serious reason is this: Life as run by the system which hon. Members opposite support consists of a long conspiracy to cheat the public and a long effort by the Government to prevent the public from being cheated too much. It is not enough simply to say "There shall be labels, and such labels shall be legible," because there is doubt as to what is legibility. You have to print labels so that they can be seen, because people are so dishonest that when you simply tell them that they have to give information, they do it in a way which cannot easily be read.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Are the proposals contained in this Order observed by the Co-operative Society? Does the hon. and learned Member say that for many years they have been engaged in a conspiracy against the public?

Mr. Pritt: They are engaged in a struggle to carry on business in the face of the appalling handicaps put against them by the business people represented by such people as the hon. Member.

Lord William Scott: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE) (FACTORIES)

12.30 a.m.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: I beg to move
 That the Order dated 17th December, 1945, entitled the Bakehouses (Employment on the Sunday before Christmas) Order, 1945 (S.R.&amp; O., 1945, No. 1580), a copy of which was presented on 22nd January, be annulled.
I would like to make it clear that the moving of these Prayers is not a new matter, but that several hon. Members have been watching these Orders for some ten years. We have, perhaps informally, made it our special duty to watch them.
During the last Parliament, there were times when we moved Prayers against the Government, and got the Government of the day either to withdraw certain Orders, or to withdraw them and reintroduce them in a new form. I would point out that the only Parliamentary method of raising the matters concerning these Orders is by a Prayer or a Resolution.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that in the last Parliament these Prayers were always moved on the merits of the Orders?

Mr. Taylor: Certainly. If the hon. Member will look at the volumes of HANSARD, under the names of people such as Sir Herbert Williams and other hon. Members, including myself, he will see that we moved many of these Prayers. I make no apology for doing so tonight. I feel it is the duty of every hon. Member to study every one of these Orders. My hon. Friends and I, of our own free will and volition—out of the kindness of our hearts—have been doing this job which hon. Members opposite ought to have been doing for themselves. Hon. Members opposite should be extremely grateful that we have set ourselves the task of reviewing a great many. Of these Orders. After all, the attention of the House was drawn to the Orders we have discussed tonight by the Select Committee.
The Order to which this Prayer relates is somewhat different from the other Orders in that it was signed on 17th December and was laid on 22nd January, but the effectiveness of the Order ceased after the Sunday before Christmas. The Order related to the employment of bakers, under the Factories Act, on the Sunday before Christmas. Surely, the Ministry of Food must have known for some time before that bakers were to be employed on the Sunday before Christmas. I am certain that, if I had been at the Ministry of Food, I should have said, "We must have bread over Christmas, we must have bakers at work on the Sunday before Christmas, and therefore, the Order must be made." I should have had it ready weeks before. There is no excuse whatever for producing an Order signed on 17th December and laying it before the House long after its effectiveness has ceased. I hope that in this instance we shall have a very special explanation from the Minister.

12.34 a.m.

Major Guy Lloyd: I beg to second the Motion.
Having listened to the various discussions on these Orders, I must say that the blunder with regard to this Order seems to be more glaring than in the case of the others. I have followed with great interest the difference of opinion which apparently exists between the Front Bench opposite and their supporters I would like to congratulate very sincerely the Minister who have come here tonight and treated us, in my opinion, with great courtesy, and have been perfectly frank. We very much appreciate it, but that is in striking contrast to the attitude of many of their supporters behind, who somehow or other appear to have resented that these matters have been brought forward at all and have assumed this has been done in a Party spirit. The answer to that has been given by their own Ministers, and I thank those Ministers. I assume that the hon. Lady who will reply will take the same white sheet as other Ministers have done and apologise for the mistake that has been made here again.

12.36 a.m.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I have some sym pathy with hon. Members opposite in praying—

Mr. Tiffany: I was under the impression from the mover of the Motion that he was dealing with the Minister of Food. I thought the hon. Member had studied the matters under discussion and I understood the. Minister of Food was to reply.

Mr. Ness Edwards: To resume the sentence where I left off—because I myself have been connected with some Pravers when I sat on the opposite side of the House. I do not resent what is a legitimate Parliamentary function. On this occasion I do not appear in a white sheet. I was asked to come here in a white sheet and apologise, and all the rest of it, for some great sin of commission or omission.
In this case I think we have a perfectly reasonable reply. In the first place, this Order does not apply to the bakers who are normally engaged in the baking industry at all. It applies merely to the

employment of women on a Sunday and, under this Order, permission is given for the employment of women on the Sunday before Christmas for a fairly obvious reason. Everybody wanted their Christmas cake to be cooked, and their Christmas confectionary made ready. It was for that purpose, and that purpose alone, that this Order was made so that in respect of the Sunday before Christmas women should be employed in the bakehouses of this country. That is the extent of this Order. In order to get agreement about this matter, it will be appreciated on all sides of the House, there were a number of interested parties whose acquiescence, if not agreement, was essential if we were to get the maximum result from the Order. These negotiations were carried on and the results of the negotiations were not arrived at until a very late date.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: Would the hon. Member say when they started?

Mr. Ness Edwards: They started, as I understand it, by the receipt of an application from the employers, in the Ministry of Labour. I am speaking from memory—I think it was on 1st December. Then discussions took place, feelings, soundings, were made and so on, and it was not until, as I am informed, the week before Christmas that it was agreed on both sides that the exemption should be made for the Sunday before Christmas, and that the special Order should be made by the Minister. That was done on 17th December. The Order was agreed, to by all the parties concerned. The matter was sent to the printers but the printed notice of the Order did not arrive at the House before the House departed for the Recess. It is a very short period— from 17th December—and it will be recalled that the House rose on the 20th. I am told that there was a reason that forced us to get the Orders as quickly as possible. The Stationery Office were informed, but, owing to the pressure on printing at the time, the House rose before the Orders arrived.
Under this Order, again, no penalties were imposed on anyone. What was done was done for a good purpose, of which the House will approve. On the other hand, one must say that there is weight in the contention that Orders must be produced and laid before the House as quickly as possible. There was this


delay of three days in getting the Orders printed and brought back to the House: because it took four days, they could not be placed before the House until the 22nd. There is the further point that, if the Motion is accepted, it will be a nullity, because the thing has already taken place, and, in view of the circumstances and the explanation I have given, I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his Motion.

Sir W. Darling: Does this Order apply to Scotland?

Mr. C. S. Taylor: I would again refer the hon. Gentleman to the argument made on the first Motion tonight. I wish he would study this. The Order could have been set up in type on the 17th all ready for circulating. The necessity was known long before, and it could have been ready to be run off and we could have had notice of it before the House rose. [Hon. Members: "Private printers would have done it."] However, in view of the ex-

planation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. Mikardo: On a point of Order. In the sense in which the words -are normally used, it is nonsense to suggest that anything is being annulled if it is valid, and, if what the Parliamentary Secretary says is the case, it is out of Order and the request for leave that the Motion should be withdrawn is also out of Order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is not correct in his interpretation.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Resolved: '' That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Collindridge.]

Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen. Minutes to One o'clock a.m.